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
Manny thanks to Frank who is laboring to present this to us in a language not his own.
tonyb says: @ur momisugly 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.