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
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
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.
Temperature data, like fine shellfish, are best enjoyed raw.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
.
_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.
Re Mosher
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.
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.
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.
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
In the atmosphere, IR-active molecules contribute more to dumping heat from the top than trapping it at the bottom.
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.
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.
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 🙂
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
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
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
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
Clog-Gate!
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!!!
>>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?
.
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
“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 )
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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Numbers: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/download.html .
And sorry mates, there is no dive in 1950. The years 1950 and 1951 were meteorologically uninteresting in this area.
Half of the Netherlands where flooded in 1953.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
Should have had some effect on the inland temps.
And SRJ..
You did notice that the explanation for changing data in Gemert was quite different than the story you got?
But all accross Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, France, Denmark the temperature drop around 1947-56 is wrong, but for different simulktaneous events? We also have the old DDR represented, I guess they co-worked with Holland measuring city temperatures in 1950 ?
Frank, you may want to cross check with Coolhansnl
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/index.html
A few remarks from me as a Dutchman:
@ Philip Bradley: absolutely valid remark about the influence the Flevopolders may have on the climate, causing De Bilt to be effectively further away from water. Technically speaking not from the sea, as the former Zuiderzee (“south sea”) had already become a large sweetwater lake since the closure of de Afsluitdijk in 1932.
Nevertheless, de Flevopolders added substantial land surface.
But the Flevopolders only became dry in 1957 (Oostelijk Flevoland, easterly part) and 1968 (Zuidelijk Flevoland, southerly part) respectively. I happen to live in the easterly part (Lelystad), 4 meters below the sea level.
Lelystad by the way set a record low temparture this winter beginning of February at minus 22,9 celsius. It was the lowest temperature recorded for the last 27 years in the Netherlands. Of course this doesn’t say much about averages and trends, but at least this “children won’t know what snow is” and “we won’t ever be able to iceskate outside anymore” has been thoroughly debunked. It is also encouraging and funny that the large public has remembered these claims and many now deride them.
@Atomic Hairdryer: altitude is largely irrelevant in the Netherlands, with the exception of Maastricht.
General remark: the people at KNMI are (unfortunately) known as fierce warmists. Luckily we have some other voices as well in the Netherlands such as climategate.nl and scientist Mr Bas van Geel.
Is there anywhere where temperature data hasn’t been scammed in one way or another ?
This rings some bells – we’ve discussed some of these issues before. In a thread 2,5 years ago, Hans Erren told me that “The 1950 step is a well known WMO artifact”. I’m still not sure what this artifact actually is – change in measurements standards? Anthony, do you know? Or maybe Hans will show up and explain?
Quote beginning
Frank Lansner says:
”
May 18, 2012 at 3:04 am
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 ”
Quote ending
This particular change I am describing is introducing a warm bias as I demonstrated to you in klimadebat.dk. The example with synthetic data is shown here:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/temp.jpg
I am planning to make an example using the hourly data for de Bilt from KNMI’s homepage.
I do not think this is a general dutch issue since it is only described for de Bilt in the article by G. van der Schrier. But it is an issue for de Bilt, and it is introducing a warm bias and therefore, data from GHCN v2 for de Bilt is not representing the correct de Bilt temperature.
cRR Kampen says:
“Numbers: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/download.html .
And sorry mates, there is no dive in 1950. The years 1950 and 1951 were meteorologically uninteresting in this area.”
Kampen, Please examine you own link:
Start dates are later than 1950 excpet for coastal stations and the strongly adjusted De Bilt and Maastricht.
Only Eelde – exactly as said in the article – in the North of Holland is RAW an UNADJUSTED available before 1951, and as shown Eelde do have 0,5 K more dive after 1949 than the CNT.
It is exactly as I say: There are no RAW temperature data available for the Dutch people before 1950 except for coastal stations and Eelde. See the first figure in the article.
leftturnandre says:
“Frank, you may want to cross check with Coolhansnl
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/index.html
”
Thankyou so much, I will check it out from A ti Z.
> 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.
This is fair enough if you’re trying to determine the temperature at one particular place that’s at a different position than one of your thermometers.
But if you want to determine a trend, nothing should be adjusted. It should all just
be averaged to get a true, unbiased result.
“”SRJ”
You write: “I do not think this is a general dutch issue”
This is more true than you might realise.
The non-coastal drop from the 1930-50 level to the 1960-80 level can be traced basically from Morocco to Russia.
its only THE SHAPE of data that differs a little , but the KNMI´s Rambo-like data changes removes the whole trend difference 1930-50 versus 1960 that is evident also From Ireland to Isreal!!
Come by one day and I will show you 😉
K.R. Frank
Frank Lansner at May 18, 2012 at 4:35 am
I’m sorry, I’m Dutch and into the met as of over thirty years. I know more than three centuries of climate and climate history in this country practically by heart and I know it utterly, not only by raw data but by all those factors influenced by weather and climate conditions.
One remark to be made: where you measure in this country is not too relevant. It is flat and it is very small. A trend in Maastricht (my birth city by the way) will be found likewise, with at most a couple of tenths of degrees difference, everywhere in the country. Recent warming by the way was strongest by that small margin in the far northeast of the country, which has neither urbanized nor seen land win over de past half to whole century. The data voor de Bilt, and Zwanenburg if you wish to go back a while, suffice.
By the way, Eelde/Groningen is not coastal like De Kooy is (for a meteorological reason). Also, there are more numbers, e.g. http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html .
Those who like to try and find out whether meteo-wise the years 1950 or 1951 were anything special, as compared to e.g. 1947, 1956, 1963 or 1979, should take a Sunday afternoon to leaf through an archive like this: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsreaeur.html .
Frank Lansner at 5:12 am, why not show now?
I’ve noted no little disaffection with the recent (and not so recent) ‘adjustments’ of temperature data sets, and the resultant (further) distrust of climate science. Some comments here on WottsU for example:
“Has there ever been an example of data being “adjusted” to make AGW less? Every time I see an “adjustment”, it makes recent temperatures hotter and past temperatures colder.”
“It would be a joke if not that so many billions of people are hurt or killed by these charlatans.”
“The Team simply made the whole thing up from the beginning.”
“WHAT A SCAM! What proof that NOAA is HIDING INFORMATION THEY DON’T WANT US TO HAVE!”
I could go on, but I think you get my drift.
The problem is that using this adjusted data leaves ‘sceptics’ playing off the back foot (“Look at GISS/CRU etc. graph! Now the World is warming up again”). The more adjustments, the futher sceptics are being painted into a corner! How can sceptics argue that the world is cooling while ‘climate science’ is shifting the goal posts all over the place (more precisely to where it’s warmer).
The answer is that the sceptic movement must completely cut its ties with the manipulated graphs of the (quote) charlatans. A completely new, true, uncontaminated data set for Global Temperatures must be produced by trustworthy people. Legitimate adjustments can be made to the raw data, of course. This website has proven that there are more than enough absolute amateurs who are up to the task. Frank L. appears a likely candidate; Steve “the hero of the 21st century” McI., too.
Let’s face it, sceptics are on a hiding to nothing at the moment. There’s a desperate need for some proper graphs which go the right way. How’s about starting with Global Temps from the late 1800’s, then a proper graph of the satellite record. If everything goes well, move on to Sea Ice and the other manipulated graphs….
Good idea? Or what?
The Bilt was replaced in 1950. It cooled the record by 1 C. It explaines the 1950 dip in raw data, but it does not explain the other stations.
Jeroen says:
“The Bilt was replaced in 1950. It cooled the record by 1 C. It explaines the 1950 dip in raw data, but it does not explain the other stations.”
Im happy we agree on this.
One thing i would like to mention though: KNMI suddenly 60 years after 1950 assumes that a local station move on flat ground should make a huge difference of 1 K, but given that other stations show a similar drop in 1950, it appears someone assumed wrong for De Bilt.
It takes a miracle that so many station simultaneously by freak error ends up with the very same freak “wrong” data graph. I hope all can see this.
On top of this, KNMI seem to hide raw data, and this obviously do not make them look good or trustworthy in any way. At least thats my opinion.
The Royal Netherland MI should openly share raw data from many many temperature stations with the Royal Netherland population.
Hiding data like CRU gives bad karma…
cRR Kampen,
If you have Raw Zwanenberg or any other dataset (from Europe or beyond) mail me on fel@nnit.com, thank you.
– especially If you have 30 years in the Met world, please send me raw data also from Belgium (That is EVEN MORE RESTRICTED when it comes to temperature data before 1951 than KNMI !!) please let me see it.
What is it w/Mosher on the lat/altitude stuff? If you’re working w/anomalies at single, unchanging stations, you don’t need to worry about it — anomalies are anomalies.
If you’re talking about single stations changing location, then yes. But then why not treat changing station locations as separate, unique stations?
Village I.
You write: ” A completely new, true, uncontaminated data set for Global Temperatures must be produced ”
Yes, you cant examine temperature before knowing which data are sick and which are good.
Its that simple.
I am in the process of starting up such a temperature index “RUTI”, and even though im not there yet, RUTI is build on open dicisions and data sources, that is, RUTI is in fact the only nearly reproducable temperature set that exists at this moment.
RUTI:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php
K.R. Frank
Possibly off-thread, but vaguely linked to this curiosity, possibly via “coastal” versus “inland” issues.
Benbecula, out in the Hebrides, is a “land” site but I imagine is totally dominated by the Atlantic airstreams. Its BEST temperature record is here: http://i44.tinypic.com/2ues32p.jpg (The polynomial fit is for cosmetic and entertainment value and is not intended to have any predictive or analytical value.)
Over the last 160 years the air temperature shows a sort of cyclic change with an amplitude of half a kelvin and period of eighty years but I don’t know why. Any ideas?
Benbecula: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&q=benbecula+map&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x488d1df940b0184f:0xf0c681afa672330,Benbecula&gl=uk&ei=fVu2T5mdG8bN8QO2tuinCg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q8gEwAA
The article already write: “Gemert had a large break in October 1949, when the station was renovated.” In the meta data on De Bilt, I found that there was a change from a Pagode Screen to a Stevenson screen in Mai 1950. The renovation in Gemert may have been a similar update. This screen change may well explain the artificial drop in temperature in 1950, which needs to be corrected to be able to compute a reliable temperature trend.
To measure air temperature a thermometer needs a screen to protect it against radiation and wetting. The Pagode Screen is open at the bottom, such a screen is shown in the meta data of De Bilt (this page is in Dutch, the Pagode screen is shown in the top two pictures at the bottom of the page):
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/metadata/debilt.html
At the time they probably thought that an open bottom was good for ventilation. In other countries similar screens with an open bottom were used as well, such as the Wild Screen in many Northern and Eastern European countries and the Montsouri Screen in Southern Europe.
http://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/mitarbeiter/venema/themes/homogenisation/HOME/#photos
On sunny days with little wind, the land surface heats up, the heat radiation heats the thermometer (radiation error), which biases the measurement. Therefore Stevenson Screens (Cotton Region shelters) were used more and more, which are closed to all sides and use double Louvre walls. The difference between these two screens can be studied by making several years of measurements with both screens at the same location (parallel measurements).
Silver Ralph aks: “Give me one logical reason why all historic temperatures need cooling, rather than warming?”
Many inhomogeneities are random in sign. But the transition of screens with an open bottom to Stevenson screens occurred world-wide. If you go back even further in time, to the 19th century, temperature was typically measured at the north side of a building, near a window of an unheated room. Even if the room was unheated, this still also created a warm bias.
As these transitions in how temperature was measured occurred world-wide, they are seen in all the raw data and homogenization of the data will correct the too warm values to the cooler values that would have been measured, had people used Stevenson screens at the time.
By the way, in Eelde they had a Stevenson screen from the start.
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/metadata/eelde.html
This may be the reason that the KNMI is willing to give out this raw data. As this series is relatively homogeneous, it cannot be so easily abused by climate sceptics to mislead uninformed citizens.
tonyb says:
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.’
Which book was that? And is there any chance you can remember the exact quote?
Here is a long term composite graph using, averaged anomalies (1960-1990 base period) including the Debilt, Central England, Upsalla & Berlin-Tempelhof data. These were selected, because they had records starting prior to 1750.
http://dc254.4shared.com/img/l2jEHPxe/s3/Ave4_20yr_3fil.gif
Three filter methods were used, with a 20 yr. ( 0.05 cyc/yr) “cut off”.
MOV- Moving Ave.
FR CH – Forward Reverse “filtfilt” (MATLAB) recursive 2-pole Chebushev
FF – Fourier Convolution
What is interesting, is that there seemed to little warming, in Europe in the beginning of the industrial age, and it was only after 1960, that the temperature “somehow” started to rise.
Here are a couple more. Ave1 is the CEL data using a Fourier 0.05 cyc/yr filter, while Ave14 uses stations that started recording prior to 1800.
http://dc457.4shared.com/img/k3wgtEsA/s3/Ave1_2010_FF_20yr.jpg
http://dc273.4shared.com/img/I04JY2jI/s3/Ave14_2010_FF_20yr.jpg
What was interesting about the Ave14, was that it showed the 1850 era was a local low point in temperature, & by coincidence, the starting point for the HadCRUT data sets.
PLEASE GIVE ME A TIP IF YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE ON
Henry@frank
(are you Dutch?)
the problem is that if you go and look before 1970 you are running into a problem.
After 1970 most weatherstations were put on continuous temp. monitoring devices,
but before that they had to have people doing the readings of the temperatures every so often.
They usually did have have thermometers that measured the minima and maxima every day so you might find something usefull there if you go before 1970
but average temps. before is a definite no-no – everything become questionable and open to doubt.
People doing the reading of temps. is definitely a very an unreliable source.
Personally I found maximum temps giving me some good information:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
TonyG
If you go to this link you can find a developing conversation about this and the book name (I think).
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/17/cmip5-decadal-hindcasts/#comment-201203
Coincidentally, as I saw your comment I had been looking in my digital files to see if I could find the exact reference as I think I emailed someone about it at the time (a month or two ago) as it was such an astonishing comment. If I come across it I’ll let you know
tonyb
Manny thanks to Frank who is laboring to present this to us in a language not his own.
tonyb says: @ May 18, 2012 at 12:29 am
..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.’…..
_________________________
Tony, if you have the time to actually dig out the quote and give it to use including page and title, that would be great. We know the temperatures are adjusted by the Climate Scientists who then lose the adjustments and never really tell us WHY.
A classic is “The Goat Ate My Homework”: NIWA’s confession that it lost the Schedule of Adjustments (SOA) for the official New Zealand temperature record is the latest event in a long-running scandal…
TonyG
Wow! Im impressed with my own efficiency. This is part of an email I sent to a colleague
” My particular interest in getting hold of original temperature readings from these associations is to try to unravel a mystery. As you know I collect historic temperature records on my website, and I currently have two books on early temperatures that I borrowed from the Met office library, by Phil Jones and D Camuffo.
What is intriguing is that Jones/Camuffo state that historic temperatures show a ‘warm bias’ and are consequently revised downwards, as they do not match the temperatures expected by their models!!!”
So the actual phrase ‘warm bias’ was obviously used by Jones?camuffo and the reasons for the adjustments directly paraphrased by me. I did a google and came across this intriguing document.
http://www.clivar.org/sites/default/files/imported/organization/etccdi/etccdi4/talks/PJones.pdf
The first photograph of a building In Austria has some of the ‘warm bias’ phrasing and a reference so presumably this was delivered at a talk and used material from the book
tonyb
Gail
I just saw your note after I replied to TonyG.I’ll have a hunt around for the quote but I suspect it was in the biook I’ve since returned to the library and as it was a very long and somewhat tedious book I’d be reluctant to have to plough through it all again unless it was considered VERY important!!
Frank, sorry to have wandered off topic from your thread. Within the link to phil Jones Talk given to TonyG was a slide that under ‘screen references’ makes comments about de Bilt having material taken from CET. I didn’t know this or what period it covers
tonyb
Silver Ralph says:
May 18, 2012 at 1:12 am
…..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?
_______________________________________________
I will give you two. MONEY and POWER. You have to scare the (selfsnip) out of people to get them to give up money and power. Just how much money would Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF (now international political forces) or politicians/bureaucrats be able to extract from the general population with out a boogie-man to fight?
suffolkboy
Benbecula data, Wow, can you guide me on BEST data retrieval?
How do i get yearly data?
Thankyou so much indeed and keep bringing stuff, its very appreciated!!
K.R. Frank
J.Bop
Thankyou for comment:
The Berlin Tempelhof is strongly adjusted even in GHCN v2 raw, CET is yet another fairytale on adjusted temperature data just like De Bilt.
Thus your long term graph is based mostly on warm adjusted data, im sorry to say. Science is not science these days.
Checkout Berlin T around fig 27 – fig 28:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php
K.R. Frank
suffolkboy says:
May 18, 2012 at 7:32 am
Possibly off-thread, but vaguely linked to this curiosity, possibly via “coastal” versus “inland” issues.
____________________________
Frank discussed that issue too. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/
TonyG and Gail
This is the rationale behind the EU funded project from which the Jones/Camuffo book was then developed to summarise the findings;
http://www.isac.cnr.it/~microcl/climatologia/improve.php
Let me make it clear that I thought the Jones/Camuffo et al work was very well done but it became extremely theoretical and full of assumptions and conjectures and it started to occur to me part way through that there seemed to be an intention to modify the historic temperatures downwards. This precipitated my series of emails to a variety of people in order to try to determine if that could possibly be true.
This email was subsequently sent to another colleague;
“Further to the email I sent you a little while ago regarding the Camuffo/Jones study. I have now read the Bohm study and excerpt this piece from p161;
‘However, the constantly warmer instrumental summer temperatures before the late 19th century in the CET data suggest the presence of a warm bias in the early English observational data in
this season, similar to what has been concluded for Central European stations (Frank et al. 2007a, b) and also proposed for Stockholm and Uppsala summer temperatures (Moberg et al. 2003).’
(my words) The study takes a great deal of time to explain why the models are correct and all the instruments in many countries consequently must show a warm bias, although even with the reductions in temperature they propose, the summer temperatures during the 18th century are still greater than anything seen until the 1990’s. This of course seems to be a reason why further studies are considered necessary, in order to further correct the warming biases.”
—- —–
I was researching material for an article on the Mannheim palatine and the Jones book and Bohm study was ultimately a blind alley as far as my own interests at the time were concerned..
tonyb
Alexej Buergin says at May 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm ->
R. R. Kampen worked for the Dutch met office. This is not so. I am him, my background is academic meteorology/oceanography/climatology and mathematics for the love of chaotic dynamical systems (so I’ve enjoyed colleges from Henk Tennekes on fluid dynamics and some). I keep up with the subject but am paid for QA in a software company.
I also since perhaps a half dozen years contribute to Watt’s forum but sporadically. Of course I had to be present on this topic a bit 🙂
…As these transitions in how temperature was measured occurred world-wide, they are seen in all the raw data and homogenization of the data will correct the too warm values to the cooler values that would have been measured, had people used Stevenson screens at the time…..
_____________________________________
The stevenson screens are nothing to write home about either.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/
Not to mention all the rest of the problems with the data sets. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
However the method that should be used for these problems is to show ERROR BARS! Instead climate scientists have the unmitigated gall to try to tell us they can measure the change in a century of dubious data to the nearest hundredth of a degree or whatever.
Error analysis of the IPCC temperature record by a NASA scientist: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
Probably good work but waaaaaaay too many lines on the graphs. Keep it down to 2!
Frank Lansner May 18, 2012 at 7:24 am
http://www.knmi.nl/onderzk/hisklim/LandData/landdata.html
Figuur 3, scroll 90% down, shows your jump.
Sorry the text is in Dutch, I know of no translation yet.
These are the raw data, original units as written then even:
http://www.knmi.nl/onderzk/hisklim/LandData/landdata.html
Zwanenburg 5th row.
My way of opening these data is to change extension of the files, .dat, into .csv then open with Excel en bring data to columns.
Unhappily I cannot help you as quickly as you could help yourself to Belgian data. Of them, like of many other places in the world, I merely know aggregated data known as ‘climate’, plus some historical incidents.
Oops, sorry: correct link for the actual data here: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html
Raw data, try this.
http://www.rimfrost.no/
Frank re BEST
The new BEST data appears to be in http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
I was using the “preliminary” data in 2011 rather than whatever they released in 2012, which I presume is in the same format but tidied up and packaged into several different editions rather than the single 2011 edition. It comes as about one gigabyte of text files in a simple but extremely verbose format (one temperature reading per line of several dozen characters). I had to write some short but geeky special-purpose software tools (mainly filtering, ordering, sorting, graphing, database) to preprocess them to get the data into a form accessible to general purpose display tools. You won’t get far with Notepad! I had intended to get the tools perfected ready for the full release earlier this year but lost motivation at the thought of fitting 44,000 fragments of pottery into a coherent vase without their being any agreed instruction manual and diagram with the kit, merely BEST’s artist’s impression. My favourite station was Hohenpeissenberg ( at http://i44.tinypic.com/1ynw5k.jpg ), followed by Berlin ( at http://i51.tinypic.com/2a82agl.jpg ), but this is just for fun without scientific value! Overall, BEST data would appeal to butterfly collectors more than engineers: mostly it’s a lot of short-time span records (frequently highly movable polar research stations for a year or two, or seasonally populated seafood processing stations), or longer ones with huge gaps, plus some fun ones going back into the 1700s. It would take years to sort out the station histories.
Hi “TA”, sadly the Rimfrost site is for warm adjusted data in cherrypicked periods only.
But thankyu very much for the tip!
K.R. Frank
I see the book referred to by tonyb is available for a modest 133.70 euros. A bargain, since a CD-ROM is included with the adjusted data.
JollyFarmer
I borrowed the book from the Met office library. Its very highly technical so only worth the money to those able to decipher the data and have a high boredom threshold.I had to renew it three times in order to plough through to the end.
tonyb
AO, again
http://virakkraft.com/AO-Holland.png
Hi Suffolkboy!
Thank you for links !
I have downloaded the Tavg file from the Best site, here an example from the data file ,
Maastricht:
18469 1 1906.042 10.706 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.125 8.947 0.0067 28 -99
18469 1 1906.208 9.050 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.292 9.937 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1906.375 11.025 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.458 9.936 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1906.542 10.734 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.625 11.230 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.708 9.688 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1906.792 13.083 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1906.875 12.330 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1906.958 6.866 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.042 8.558 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.125 6.814 0.0067 28 -99
18469 1 1907.208 9.893 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.292 9.498 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1907.375 10.726 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.458 8.958 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1907.542 7.636 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.625 9.665 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.708 10.355 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1907.792 12.933 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1907.875 11.727 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1907.958 10.758 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.042 6.114 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.125 9.814 0.0066 29 -99
18469 1 1908.208 8.830 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.292 7.960 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1908.375 11.623 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.458 11.667 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1908.542 10.577 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.625 8.779 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.708 10.268 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1908.792 11.447 0.0064 31 -99
18469 1 1908.875 9.737 0.0064 30 -99
18469 1 1908.958 8.311 0.0064 31 -99
Temperatures looks scrampled?
K.R. Frank
I disagree with Frank Lansner that KNMI fudged the data. My own homogeneity adjustment of Uccle and De Bilt which is referenced above, show that both Uccle and De Bilt have a synchronous station adjustment due transition to Stevenson huts.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/homogen.htm
A Maastricht airport didn’t exist prior to 1945 so I don’t know where the early Maastricht temperature observations were obtained and when the observations on the current Ulestraten site did start, after the installation of a Stephenson hut in 1950 sounds very plausible to me.
Hans, it puzzles me that I have now seen 3 different explanation that should justify the De Bilt correction, you focus a transation to Stevenson screen.
When was the shift to Stevenson screen first documented? Do you have the original paper on this from 1950?
Howcome you can be sure that such a shift should yield 1 K in warm adjustment?
As shown, we also have large dives in Paris, Luxemburg, Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, Leeuwarden, Gemert and a rather large dive in Eelde too.
In addition, the De Bilt correction has the effect that the level 1930-50 ends up almost as cold as 1960-80.
This is not supported either from a row of German cities in GHCN V2 raw.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/NWeurope/fig36.jpg
Also the British Islands shows warmer 1930-50 than 1960-80:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/GreatBritain/fig5.jpg
Southern Sweeden shows the dive 1949-1956 to be almost 3 K, just like De Bilt.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/Scandinavia/fig12.jpg
Netherland is surrounded by areas not in compliance with CNT when using raw data. So small Netherlands climate is rather independent of its surroundings?
And most of all: What would be your explanation for howcome KNMI dont make all temperature data pubplic available?
And why do Belgium only have data for the Bruxelles area public avaiable? Howcome northern France has no raw data before 1951 publically available except paris?
Howcome Germany dont show many raw pre-1951 datasets? Howcome Denmark – Exactly like Holland – only show data from coastal areas except Copenhagen, the UhI poluted station?
Howcome Poland demands 20.000 Eur to deliver me 50 years from one station when asked?
There are more old raw GHCN V2 data available from Zambia than Nothern France + Benelux + Northern Germany combined. If this causes disbelief, who is to blame for that?
K.R. Frank
Format looks OK. Temperatures look silly.
18469 = Maastricht
1 = Log number (always 1 in prelim)
1908.xxx = data, in year 1908, starting from midnight leading to 1st jan 1909 (Notice: this is not a linear time scale, because of leap years, but you are not likely to notice 365/366!)
11.623 temperature (average over month, see below)
0.00624 unknown
31 = number of measurement used to obtain average (usually number of days in month)
-99 uncertainty not known or not applicable
THE TEMPERATURE might not be what you think it is. Check the file header and site_details.txt or whatever. Watch out for seasonal adjustments and similar warnings about how this average has been calculated and adjusted.
Good luck!
Smoke, fire, and all that. Once in a blue moon, coincidence. These things are happening all over the world. I have come to have *zero* believability in what the Statists tell us, whether it’s in climate, economics, politics, or any other field. People need to wake up to what this crowd wants, and what the end terms are for we regular folk. Apologize for the rant, but I’ve seen too much of this in this field, and too many others. Feel free to snip, but I truly hope that people in America, Europe, and the rest of the world wake up to the threats that are upon us. Many thanks to Anthony, among a goodly number of others in the New Media, who are doing their part to push back the tide.
If you want the Belgian data, contact the RMI (or KMI in Dutch) and BUY them.
Pat @ 7.35 and Myrhh @ 11.50
Thanks for the updates on the UK weather this month. I recall a comment/thread in early April highlighting the major difference of forecasts foe weather in the UK for May. Piers Corban said it would be extremely cold ( comparatively for May ) and the UK Met office said it would relatively mild. So it looks like PC has shown up the Met Office ( with all its super computers and fancy models) has won their “little” difference of opinion. No wonder the bookies will not take bets from PC anymore.
The real issue with the adjustments isn’t whether they are justified or not. The problem is the opportunity they present to introduce confirmation bias, which is well documented in branches of science better known for their methodological rigour than climate science.
For quite a lot of data (36 stations), select starting date and stations:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/selectie.cgi
(Dutch only, English link broken)
Suffolk Boy
Thankyou very much for assistance. In my file from BEST it really looks like data where scrambled. In the header they write that this should be temperature but i got really dissapointed. Again..
If you have the 2011 version of best data, is there any chance that I can mail you the BEST station numbers that im interested to see, and then you can mail me the data?
I know its a lot to ask :-/
If so my mail: [SNIP: Frank, posting your e-mail address is not a good idea. I am forwarding your request to Suffolk Boy with your e-mail address. -REP]
K.R: Frank
Tonyb and Gail Combs: Thank you very much for your comments, and I think its extremelyinteresting with that Phil Jones quote you were discussing!
K.,R. Frank
Boels069
Thankyou for link to the daily Dutch temperature data.
But even in that context of 36 stations, they insist only to show pre-1951 data for the usual five:
De Kooy
De Bilt
Maastricht
Eelde
Vlissingen
In their own CNT-report they also use data pre 1951 from:
Groningen D006 H 19061951
Winterswijk D020 G 19061990 Nov 1944 De Bilt
Hoorn D029 G 19061990 Nov 1947Apr 1948 Den Helder
Oudenbosch D032 G 19061992
Gemert D033 G 19061990
Sittard D145 G 19061948 Apr-Aug 1940, Nov 1944-Feb 1945 Maastricht
Twenthe D146 G 19471970
And from other sources I know that pre-1951 data also exists in
Leeuwarden
Gilze-Rijen
Twenthe
Valkenburg
Ypenburg
And there are probably more. But these data appears to be a royal national secret.
Moderator: Than you so much for help!!
Frank
I sense “conspiracy” in your writings.
Have you vistited the met office library in De Bilt? Not everything that is published in print is put online, because somebody has to do the work.
In nearly every university library in The Netherlands you can find the publications of Aart Labrijn which contains all the data up to 1945 in print.
1 Labrijn, A. Het klimaat van Nederland gedurende de laatste twee en een halve eeuw. Schiedam, 1945. Proefschrift Utrecht [‘s-Gravenhage, 1945]. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen, KNMI, 49
2 Labrijn, A. Overzicht van de in Nederland met behulp van instrumenten verrichte weerkundige waarnemingen in de 18e en 19e eeuw. Hemel en Dampkring, 40, 1942, p. 19-21.
3 Labrijn, A. Overzicht van de in Nederland verrichte waarnemingen met behulp van instrumenten tot ± 1850. Hemel en Dampkring, 39, 1941, p. 20-24
RTFR
Some historic data (Dutch only):
http://knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html
(Note the Labrijn-series from 1706 to present)
Hans Erren
I am fortunate to live near the Met office in Exeter who have an excellent library AND archive where there are very many interesting things. Most work has not been digitised and for many reseachers if it has not been digitised it does not exist and is not used. I was also at the Library of Exeter Cathedral last week looking at anything that might relate to the climate of the 14th and 15th Century. Nothing whatsoever from there is online and unlikely to be for years.
You never know what you might find in such places and they are worth investigating. Many interesting older books relating to climate HAVE been put on line but I suspect not many people read them unless they are ‘famous’
tonyb
Jongens,
jullie snappen het ook allemaal nog niet,
kijk naar de maxima
vergeet de rest
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/a-blast-from-the-past-james-hansen-on-the-global-warming-debate-from-13-years-ago/#comment-989111
Frank,
you can find a lot more data from Germany from the DWD site. They are constantly updating the timeseries. You can even find daily temperature data from Hohenpeissenberg beginning in 1781 and 8 more beginning before 1902. Quite a few start in ’36/’37 then some in ’47 and then in ’51.
Unfortunatly you can’t directly link to the site but go to http://www.dwd.de, click on the union jack for english language then up on ‘climate + environment’ -> left on ‘climatological data’ -> just to the right is now ‘climate data – online – free’ click on ‘more’ -> on the left ‘climatological data for Germany’ -> ‘…per measuring stations’ -> now you can look around at ‘daily values’, ‘monthly values’ or ‘data in standard format’. There is information available for each type. If you click on ‘stationsoverview’ you can see when the series begin, but you can not get the data from there, you have to go back to ‘daily values’…
It is one of the least user-friendly sites I know about, but there really is a lot of information available.
Joel Heinrich,
thank you very much for the tip, but sadly some series i have tested appears to be warm adjusted compared to earlier versions. As i recall they dont write clearly “adjusted” or “unadjusted” and thus one has no idea what material we have. There are other issues with this data that I will describe in the future,
K.R. Frank
Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven
I would not think that your comment regarding corrections for altitude has much in it as far as the Netherlands is concerned since the Netherlands is rather flat. According to Wikipedia: .
“The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 25% of its area and 21% of its population located below sea level,[9] and 50% of its land lying less than one metre above sea level.[10]”
Not much altitude variation. The Netherlands is also not a sprawling country (say unlike Chile or Norway) so I doubt that there is much in the [latitude] comment either.
you can do it right or do it wrong. your choice.
Suffolk boy
I managed to get the huge BEST file from 2011, and then im chopping it up to around 20 files so its just a little easier to work with!! It looks good now.
K.R. Frank
Frank, I have downloaded 14,527 “Average annual climate values” pages from TuTiempo. It is a challenge to convert data found in them to csv format, because it is real nasty convoluted html, but it will be done and be made available to all. I do not think climate data could be copyrighted in a sane world, especially not at this stage of the climate debate.
Absolutely Brilliant Péter Berényi, thank you.
There are unadjusted and strongly adjusted values in one big pile and this is the challenge with this material.
But several records here – even though often just a few years are made available before 1950 – are simply unique, you cant dig it up elsewhere.
Tip: Check Hannover for
a) Tutiempo
b) GHCN V2
c) DWD´s site.
What a joke..
Again, thank you so much I wil really look forward to see what you have got.
As it is now, its a very slow process to browse tutiempo.
K.R. Frank
Frank,
Take a look at Steve Goddard’s site he has some US graphs that tell the same story. Major changes to NH and US temp records in the 40-50’s time frame. This is criminal.
Hi Frank, I had to restart the download from TuTiempo with a wider scope, because it turned out they publish data for the U. S. of A. in a different structure (by states within country) than for the rest of the world. I am not sure I will not be banned from the site due to overuse before it is finished. If not, the additional benefit is that now daily resolution is also included, even if it makes the download huge and time consuming. Anyway, scripts for extraction of annual data are ready (rather ugly one liners). As soon as I have the download finished, I will upload stuff to some place and leave a link to it here, so check back please later.
It will be in tsv format, because some station names happen to contain commas.
For extraction of finer resolution (monthly or daily) data some more work is needed. I am not sure yet when could I get back to it.
The worst case scenario is that we will have only non-US data at annual resolution for some 9000+ weather stations. The rest of stations may have data for some months in several years, but never enough to calculate annual averages.
I gave some more thought to the copyright issue. I really think all climate data should be in the public domain by now, because actual policies are based on them, which imply either direct or indirect taxation (boosting prices by overregulation). Therefore if some dataset happen to be copyrighted, states participating in the IPCC process (especially the EU, US, Japan & China) have to be compelled by joint political action to pay for it to the owner(s) to have them in the public domain once and for all, then publish them on the web in a standard, easy-to-process format. The same goes for the entire scientific literature on “Climate Change”, including the source code and full documentation of all computational climate models referenced in IPCC reports.
This money would only be a tiny fraction of what’s currently thrown to the wind anyway.
“”””” 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. “””””
You have a small typo there Frank; that should be “one full Kelvin of heating”; not one full Kelvin of heat. Temperature (Kelvins) IS the correct measure of “heating”.
either way…as long as your results match those approved by the polit bureau.
Hi Peter, thankyou again (!)
You write: “The worst case scenario is that we will have only non-US data at annual resolution for some 9000+ weather stations. ”
This is fine because, US original data from GHCN V2 raw is rather well described. Except recent years (!)
Im very much looking forward to see your creation one fine day, super.
Mosher: You did not right or wrong: You just didnt.
Frank you can either adjust for lapse rates doing things the right way, and discover that the adjustment is small. Or you can ignore doing things the right way and claim it doesnt matter.
The latter is something Mann would do. You are in good company
Berenyi Peter says
….some 9000+ weather stations. The rest of stations may have data for some months in several years, but never enough to calculate annual averages…;
Henry says
You honestly don’t need so many stations.
I looked at 9 weather stations in South Africa and essentially I got the same result as what I obtained here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
(now 45 stations, when looking at maxima!!)
Initially when I found missing data for certain months or if a month’s data was based on less than 15 days of data, I put in the longterm average of that month.I later found out that that was a mistake because weather patterns follow cycles.
Subsequently, if I found a month’s data missing or if I found that the average for a month was based on less than 15 days of that month’s data, I looked at the average temperatures of that month of the preceding- and following year, averaged these two figures, and in this way estimated the temperatures of that particular month’s missing data.
Note that instead of the means (average daily temp.data) I got more useful information from the maximum temperatures – which can be more directly related to the decline of the heat coming from the sun.
I now find the relationship for dropping maxima in degrees C per annum versus years past at
0.0455 ln (x) -0.1273 , r2= 0.997.
0= no cooling or warming = 16,4 years ago (calculated from 2011, means cooling started in 1994/5)
The frightening aspect, if this relationship holds true, is that maxima would now be dropping at about 0.2 degrees C per annum already.
Earth average temps. has been able to hide this from us because it stores energy in the oceans and in vegetation, also in hydrological cycles and in the weather. However, it seems from my tables for means and minima that this store may be running empty. So we might be in for a shock soon.
I predict this year will be year where we start to see average temps. dropping quite dramatically.
Nevertheless, average temps. is not a good parameter because it will give us the information that we need too late…..
We should be putting some alerts now, before it is too late.
Mosher, its so simple: In the climate debate the validity of adjusted temperature data is questioned.
IN-data for BEST are very afoten adjusted data. Therefore BEST is useless.
Your job should have been to challenge these data, obviously.
Frank Lansner says:
May 21, 2012 at 6:14 am
Mosher, its so simple: In the climate debate the validity of adjusted temperature data is questioned….
___________________________
Mosher’s job is to defend the adjusted data so do not expect him to ever move from that position.
As a lab scientist, adjusting data, ESPECIALLY adjusting data with no calibrations to back up the reason an adjustment is necessary is a really big NO NO. You just do not adjust data. As I said before you use error bars and foot notes with explanations.
Just for the intellectual exercise.
If the move to Stevenson screens introduced a known bias, the correct method would have been to run the old station along with the new Stevenson screen station for at least a year to determine the bias for that longitude and latitude and elevation and time of year.
I find it very difficult to believe the adjustment is the same whether you are in Alaska or Siberia at 3,000 ft elevation in the winter and in Israel at 100 ft elevation in the summer. I really doubt that the bias would be the same for two stations at the same longitude and latitude and elevation that are on opposite sides of a mountain range.
We have certainly seen enough raw temperature data to know that an observation based method for bias correction was never done for most stations. As in the Australian data, most of the measurements were rounded or truncated to the nearest degree. Anthony’s Surface Station Survey shows the stations generally do not meet the written standard.
As Jo Nova’s website states:
Therefore the older temperature data has error bars of at least 0.5 to 1 C minimum.
Error analysis: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
This kills the “Earth is Warming” manta because the “warming” is within the noise of the error bars.
Gail Combs, you write: “We have certainly seen enough raw temperature data to know that an observation based method for bias correction was never done for most stations. ”
Yes, and in the mean time another fish is in the net.
Dutch station Woensdrecht also appears adjusted arond 1 K 1949, here to series from the BEST archive:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/woensdrecht.gif
Ok, more like 0,6 K.
Metadata for Maastricht is found here:
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/metadata/maastricht.html
Look at the picture from 1939, it is quote clear that the early part of the record suffers from UHI
Eh, it’s a bit more than I’ve bargained for. 8.9 GB, 360,951 files so far, still coming.
Mosher,
Are you here for a rel dialog, then im “in” .
You want to play smart and then run away before it gets too hot, I dont want to waste my time.
You have not understood the issues mentioned in this article, its you choice if you want to expand your horizon, just let me know.
Gail
‘Mosher’s job is to defend the adjusted data so do not expect him to ever move from that position.”
wrong. you can go back and look at my comments since 2007. from the start I have had the following issues.
1. UHI
2. metadata
3. Adjustments
4. Uncertainty
rather than attack adjustments as a knee jerk reaction I suggested that one try to understand them, quantify the potential bias/uncertainty they add, and get the code. That’s what I have done. In addition, I’ve argued that investigating a different approach ( slicing records at change points ) will eliminate the need for adjustments. I made this argument. Willis made this argument, a number of us at the Airvent made this argument.
Lets review the record.
1. UHI. to date I’ve found a small positive UHI bias in undjusted raw data ( GHCN daily )
you can see the poster that Zeke and I did at AGU. That work continues
2. metadata. to date I’ve criticized hansen for using nightlights, spencer for using population density. I’ve pointed out errors in station locations and had those errors fixed by the
organizations that compile the data.
3. Adjustments. I’ve looked at TOBS adjustments and station change adjustments. While both
adjustments are justified and accurate, the approaches used do not allow one to propagate
the uncertainty due to adjustment ( standard error of prediction) into the final answer.
That is why I prefer a method like berkeley which uses unadjusted data.
4. Uncertainty. always interested in that.
So contrary to what you say I dont have an interest in defending adjustments. I have a history, a longer history than yours, of investigating the adjustments from the raw data and code perspective. You will find any number of odd things when you do this. That is why I prefer the berkeley approach. In the end what you will find is this. On a global basis it doesnt make a difference whether you
A) use adjustments
B) use raw data.
Peter: Thats odd with the 9 gb file: For ex even the “multi-file” of BEST is just 2 gb… ?!
I really hope you find out somthing, that you can download as much as possible.
Thanks for trying!
K.R. Frank
Steven Mosher says:
On a global basis it doesnt make a difference whether you
A) use adjustments
B) use raw data.
Henry says
This is exactly why I decided to look at the differences between measurements, over time,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I have finished my tables with the 45th weather station
and conclude
\
since 1994/1995 earth is in a global cooling state,
now aproximating 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C or K per annum
I cannot yet say how long the cooling is going to last
– give me some more time and we will figure that one out too –
Mosher, you write:
“That is why I prefer the berkeley approach”
Its not the process thats the issue, its the input data.
Cherry picked periods, cherry picked stations, heavily adjusted data. Therefore even though Berkerley has some good approach, even sharing input data (GOOD!) it is still no better than intput data.
Apropos the present article: Check Belgium and Northern France data raw before 1950 in the multi file. Check the Choice of danish stations.
Dutch stations are mostly the adjusted ones.
(I havent checked (yet) the cases of both adjusted and unadjusted in the multi file, that is, what data then is the result in the later steps, i would guess the adjusted ones takes over?)