The Original Temperatures Project

Guest essay by Frank Lansner

Presentation of the Original Temperatures project.


1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Adjustments of temperature data

3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG

3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI

3.3. Adjustments: The BEST project

3.3.1 BEST / Austria

3.3.2 BEST / Denmark

3.3.3 BEST / Hungary

3.3.4 BEST / UHI

3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data

4. Results from original temperature data

1. Introduction

The number of adjustments of temperature data appears overwhelming and often undocumented. Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?

As a sceptic it is my opinion that we need to know for sure. I therefore started out 18 months ago collecting original temperature data and now I have started presenting the results on

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

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

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

The number of existing longer temperature series is large. Even smaller European countries often has around 50-70 longer datasets available. And for example already in 1945 Spain collected temperatures from 500 stations.

In the following I will try to answer these questions:

1) What does original temperature data tell about the climate now?

2) What does original temperature data tell about adjustments in climate science?

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

2. Methods

OAS and OAA locations – how geography determines temperature trends.

For all areas analysed (almost 20 countries by now) we see a large group of stations with warm temperatures trends after 1930 (“OAA” stations) but also a large group of stations with very little or no warm trend after around 1930 (“OAS” stations).

The classification of OAA versus OAS simply depends on geographical surroundings.

Fig 3

In the writing “RUTI Coastal stations” (based on GHCN V2 raw) I found that Non-coastal temperatures (blue graph) were much more cold trended from around 1930 than the Coastal trends (red).

Fig 4

But Non-coastal stations can be divided further into Ocean Air Affected stations (“OAA”, marked yellow) and then Ocean Air Shelter stations (“OAS”, marked blue).

OAS areas thus have some similarities with valleys in general, but as illustrated above, the OAS areas cover a slightly different area than the valleys.

In general I have aimed to find average OAA temperature trends and average OAS temperature trends for the areas analysed. For each country analysed I have made comparison between national temperature trends as published by the “BEST” project and then the OAA and OAS temperature trends from original data. I want to know if BEST data use both the warm trended OAA data and the more cold trended OAS data. In addition, I have made comparisons of ECA&D data versus original for many countries and also HISTALP data versus original.

More info can be found on:

3. Results: Adjustments of temperature data

3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG

Fig 5 The Austrian ZAMG website “HISTALPS” ( presents their versions of Alpine temperature data online for Austria and several nearby areas. All datasets seem to show a clear warming trend.


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

From Original data we can see, that the cold trended stations (OAS) are in fact in a comfortable majority in the Alpine area and I believe ZAMG should explain themselves.

More examples of HISTALP/ZAMG adjustments from many countries:

More on original Alpine temperature data:

3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI

To evaluate ECA&D temperature data I have so far mostly studied the differences between temperature data from Tutiempo and ECA&D. Tutiempo do not change data after they first publish it. I have this from mail correspondence.

On the other hand, ECA&D frequently adjust their datasets and thus normally, ECA&D represents newer versions than Tutiempo. Therefore the difference ECA&D minus Tutiempo often tells us about the adjustments done lately to the data represented by ECA&D:

Fig 7

ECA&D temperature versions versus Tutiempo versions averaged for each nation.

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

I will ask some of you to download ECA data from these locations:

Online data can change or disappear any minute…

More on the ECA&D adjusted data:

3.3 Adjustments: The BEST project

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

Fig 8

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


Fig 9

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


Fig 10 Danish temperature stations used in the “Original Temperatures” analysis.

Red arrows: The BEST project only use longer data series from coastal stations.

In fact, DMI (the Danish meteorological institute) will not share any other long temperature sets with even the Danish population, and DMI claimed not to have the older data we asked for on digital format. I had to dig data up myself. (So now i hold tonnes of Danish climate data in digital format that DMI dont have?)

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

Fig 11

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

More on Denmark and South Sweden:


Fig 12

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

Fig 13

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

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

Erfurt, Halle, Fulda, Kassel, Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Bamberg, Hamburg, Kiel, Lubeck, Magdeburg, Nurnberg, Ulm, Augsburg, Leipzig, Arnsburg, Torgau, Bayreuth, Brausnchweig, Regenburg, Stuttgart and Darmstadt. (Ok, Hamburg is not an OAS station, but BEST can change data from these too…)

I cannot document the fate of all temperature stations used by BEST and this is why I primarily aim to document the adjustments country for country, see more:

3.3.4 BEST / UHI:

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

Here is how UHI affects “climate” data in real life:

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

3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data

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

Fig15. From the BEST FAQ web site.

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



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

Fig 17

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

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

Fig 18

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

Fig 19

European Coastal trends versus Land trend from Ocean Shelter Areas.

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

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

My thoughts:

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

Fig 21

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

Let’s take a look at similar areas in other areas of the world:

Fig 22

In all cases GHCN raw V2 temperature data (shown in RUTI articles) do not show recent temperatures warmer than for example the 1930´ies. In all cases these specific areas represents some of the most cold-trended areas of the respective continents.

For the US MIDWEST, the air masses from the Pacific first have to pass more than a thousand kilometres of mountains and thus the temperature trends in the US Midwest have unusually little noise from ocean air temperature trends.


From RUTI USA: The number in each 5×5 grid tells how much warmer or colder the decade 1998-2008 is compared to 1930-40. In many cases, the recent decade is half a Kelvin colder than the 1930´ies.

This illustration is taken from “RUTI: USA”.

I think all in all on the described basis it is fair to conclude that the missing warming in areas in shelter of ocean air is likely to be a global phenomenon. Any protests?

Is it fair then to call the missing warming after around 1930-1940 of areas in shelter of ocean air a global problem for the CO2-theory?

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

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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

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

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

K got them all disregard post above thx.


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

Steve (Paris)

Standing ovation sir




Have you published your data anywhere as I would love to compare it to the BEST database they have published.
One of the most interesting things about the BEST data is the surprisingly few 1*1 degree land cells they have actual data for that is longer than 60 years.
Unique BEST Station IDs with any temperature records : 81370
1 degree Lat/Long grid cells >60 years coverage : 173


Any chance for some of the countries refusing to give up temp data have FOI laws?
If so you maybe able to use them to get the data indirectly. Filing a FOI asking how BEST got the data, how much they paid for it, what type of document form they got it in and probably some other things will require them to respond. If they respond in good faith(probably won’t happen) then you can simply follow the BEST produce and obtain the data as they did… which i’m sure was free of charge.
If they refuse to respond and such at least you have proof they are purposely hiding the data from you and since you are working with a newspaper they maybe able to apply pressure to them to get the data released.

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

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

Rob aka Flatlander

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

The gymnastics required to get original data seem to be as important as the data itself.
Nice presentation which strongly confirms that air temperature is not a realistic measure of any climatically important variable. Air temperature is a weather variable, if anything.
Putting the thermocouple inside of a multikilogram sphere of aluminum inside the sensor shelter might give a more useful measure, since it could be used to estimate the change in energy in the area.

‘If the BEST project aimed to show something better than we have already from GISS, HadCRU or NOAA, then BEST should simply have asked for all the temperature datasets from the national Meteorological Institutes. Why not?”
The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
citizens. Open data.
Here is what Phil Jones did. he took data from NWS as you suggest we should.
Then when we asked him for the data he used, he said. Go get it yourself.
In short, we aim at taking all the that is publically available. No sign in, no registration, no request to people who could deny your request. That way people can check the work.
I’ll note that there is also data that we could have used that we would have to pay for?
Imagine the uproar if I said ‘ well we paid for that data so you cant check it”
When I started this in 2007 I held to one position. Phil Jones should not be using data from NWS that is not freely available. Publically open and maintained into the future.
Its interesting to see Phil Jones approach ressurrected at WUWT


Amazing, I was thinking of just such a project this week, and you put it in motion.
I just powered up my computer to have another look at HISTALP and I find this. Brilliant.
there are certainly sampling issues etc with most data sets but the problem comes when the “corrections” are as large as the remaining long term signal.
Further more, most of the adjustment are very speculative at best. Making speculative adjustments increases the uncertainty, not reduces it. However, we usually find after “correction” the published uncertainty is less.


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

Rob aka Flatlander

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


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

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


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

Excellent information baseline and trending. Thank you.
Request the phrasing in this paragraph be clarified:

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

David S

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

Henry Clark

IIRC, the BEST publication was done with someone who pretended to be a skeptic but was quite an environmentalist as seen in prior work.
This article illustrates some cases of a true temperature history more like a double peak than a hockey stick over the past century. Looking at publications made in the 1970s is an easy way to see the large first peak in temperature history, as the very most reliable sources are not electronic but paper copies impossible to invisibly rewrite later. (Back then, the CAGW movement hadn’t developed yet; mankind was being blamed for global cooling; and enviro-activists didn’t universally know which way to fudge the data yet).
The double peak is the history which an unfudged Northern Hemisphere or global temperature index would display, as well as the pattern in solar activity meanwhile (and that in the AMO but with the AMO being another temperature index itself by definition rather than an independent climate driver).
Such can be seen along with much else in


Steven Mosher says:
January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am
“There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
citizens. Open data.”
The data you have published seems to be very light in the early part of the record (i.e. 60 years coverage : 173
We have much better area coverage since the satellite record came on line, What is really missing is quality data from before then. Unfortunately your published data does not extend our known data record set very much (at a grid level).


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

NC Brian

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


Thank you very much for your work.
In my layman’s opinion it looks like many AGW studies have been based on falsified data.
Some of your figures (Fig 3, 11, 12, 16) show a warmer period from ~1920-50, a colder period from 60-80, and again a warmer period from 1990 until now.
Many people born in the sixties tell me ‘In my youth, the winters were much colder and it had
a lot more snow’. I wonder what their parents or grandparents would say.


Steven Mosher says:
January 6, 2014 at 8:47 am
“The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
citizens. Open data.”
Two things with this. First the post argues BEST adjusted the data themselves in many cases.
Second and more to the point. The vast majority of the data comes from groups that are fanatically pro-doomsday cult. The publicly released information can and does seem to be heavily edited/picked to support the cults predictions. Selective use of data has been a huge problem when dealing with cultists. Just because the selected data they use somewhat support the arguments they make already invalidates the arguments since they are openly admitting they are cherry picking the data they see fit to add solely by personal whim.


Bohm et al 2009 covers how they “corrected” the flat temp records by adding two adjustments of 0.5 deg C each.
Data from most of the long alpine stations (good long records from observatories) are pretty much flat until 1970 until “corrected”.
Maybe the proves AGW !?
Interesting to project to dig out all the data before adjustments and see what the story is .
Also see my look at Hadley ‘corrections’ to SST:

To Temps: Thanks for comment!
You write: ” how BEST got the data..”
But BEST chose – as Mosher writes – NOT to require the large bulk of longer unadjusted datasets from the national MI´s.
At the same time the claim they prefer unadjusted data.
From Denmark normally only coastal stations “Nordby”, Hammer Odde”, “Vestervig”, “Tranebjerg” and then the strongly UHI infected Copenhagen station.
BEST did nothing to improve this bizarre Warming-friendly choice of stations, instead they just use around 3 versions of each of the coastal stations, and then 5 copies of the Copenhagen station.
And then we as sceptics are supposed to be “happy”.
But I have digged up around 60 longer Danish stations from ALL areas of Denmark.
And this changes the picture when you dont just use warm trended data as basis like BEST to in all countried analysed so far.


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

R. de Haan

Great work.
The Germans had their airport meteorologists type in the historic temperature data from the airfield controller log book over the past years.
I fact I know a guy who was doing this horrible job for months.
Locking up the data behind closed doors, a pay wall, manipulating the data, eradicating warm periods from the past (cooling the past) and throwing away = destroying the original data should be regarded as an offense or at least a dereliction of duty or even fraud.
Try to get in touch with skeptics who have collected data files in the past and see if you can exchange them en build a record.
The climate scare mongers are not going to give up even if they have to play dirty and we don’t want to hear that global warming is killing us when we’re in a deep freeze.
Thanks for your trouble and good luck with your quest.


Steve Mosher says: “In short, we aim at taking all the that is publically available. No sign in, no registration, no request to people who could deny your request. That way people can check the work.”
In some ways that is a great approach. Sadly, it falls in practice because it is the publically available data that has been manipulated and the originals (if they have not be “lost”) are only given to people who can be trusted to “say the right thing” or “help the cause”.

By all rights, CRU and BEST ought to be sponsoring you, for doing the work they should have done. Their sponsors should take note of your work. Thanks for giving us a peek at this very worthwhile effort.
Your distinction of OAA an OAS type of stations is unexpected. Is it possible we are looking at a European centric, rather than worldwide, observation? If the OAA stations are colder that OAS stations in the 1930-60s, is it possibly related to changes in Gulf Stream warming of Europe over the century?
If I may suggest, the greatest leverage in this work might be in the publication of the longest unaltered, unadulterated, overlapping temperature records that can then be used to Quality Assess other groups’ attempts at reconstructed global historical temperature record assessments.

RichardLH says:
I have for Germany mad a long row of examples orignal versus BEST, check out the Germany writing.
I have TONNES of German meteorologic yearbooks and are not cheap nor easy to find, so i hope you guys can use it 😉
About making data online. I think this will be a goal at some point.
However, i have to feel confident about the rights and so on. I believe it shold be within the law to pass data on since the meteorological institutes already themselves have published data many years ago, but I have to be sure. I dont want to give this new project problems with lawsuits. In sure there are people who would love that. But you can always mail me!! Im very busy with MANY children, work etcetc so forgive me for slow response times…

@Stephen Rasey, thank you so much for comment!
You write: “Your distinction of OAA an OAS type of stations is unexpected.”
Well yes indeed!
BEST use data where OAS data signal appears to be completely slaughtered, and as Steven Mosher says, BEST use data that was already used, online. This suggests that BEST are not the only ones killing the OAS data, we already now know that HISTALP did the same.
At some point of course we have to move on and analyse HadCRU, GISS to check for the systematic elimination of the cold trended OAS stations. For now im working with more countries. And I can say already now that the findings will be confirmed by the next coutnries too


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

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

This only has relevance in the USA, where most stations moved from afternoon to morning recording as a matter of policy.
In other countries, such as those Frank has looked at, there was no such blanket changeover. Certainly time of observations could have changed in some places, but are just as likely to have left a warming bias.

I’ve been collecting versions of NASA GISS’s “Fig.D” U.S. Surface Temperature Anomaly data files, here:
If anyone reading this has other Fig.D versions squirreled away, I’d be grateful for copies.
It doesn’t help that GISS has configured their web server to block access by archiving tools like,, and; e.g.: -> “Access denied.”
In fact, they even block wget, run from your own computer. I think it will be necessary to spoof a web browser to automate downloading of their files.

R. de Haan

One other tip, many countries like Germany and The Netherlands have big communities of amateur meteorologists. You can find them on the web. Their data goes back before WWII, even earlier so maybe you can make a deal with them.
I know many of them are very serious about their hobby and measure their data conform the same standards KNMI measures temperatures with similar equipment.
As for the German meteorologist I know who was typing in the data form the air traffic controller logs, he plotted the data from airports that had no paved runway at the time the records were made. In the fifties, sixties and seventies many of those “green” airfields got a nice tarmac runway with taxi ways, paved platforms and steel hangars with hot tin roofs.
Just like the expanding urbanization and the replacement of ground stations a major hick up in historic temperature data.
The question remains not only what, where and how and under what circumstances they have been measuring but also how the have been adjusting that data.
finding the original data is quite a quest and if you ever be able to retrieve this data, piles of question will remain.
Finally I would like your attention for an article about temperatures published by E.M. Smith at the Chiefio Blog called: Calorie Counting Thermometers:
and the web site from Burt Rutan who has collected piles of data files from the web to provide his view on the AGW hysteria:


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


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

R. de Haan

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

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

Bill Yarber

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

more soylent green!

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


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


Whatever happened to the Watts 2012 paper?


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

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


@ Frank Lansner
Good work and very interesting.
This will rock the sinking ship CAGW. Well … except the one frozen in ice.

A C Osborn

Frank, all I can say is WOW!!!!!.
I am so impressed by the efforts of one man.
I am fairly sure that E M Smith has some Raw Data, also there are extensive records for Australia here
and I think you may be able to get them for New Zealand from here
Euan has some for Scotland here
I am sure for such an important project they would be happy to share.