Guest essay by Frank Lansner

Presentation of the Original Temperatures project.
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Adjustments of temperature data
3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG
3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI
3.3. Adjustments: The BEST project
3.3.1 BEST / Austria
3.3.2 BEST / Denmark
3.3.3 BEST / Hungary
3.3.4 BEST / UHI
3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data
4. Results from original temperature data
1. Introduction
The number of adjustments of temperature data appears overwhelming and often undocumented. Are we facing homogenization of temperature data? Or is it “pasteurization” (= warm treatment) of temperature data?
As a sceptic it is my opinion that we need to know for sure. I therefore started out 18 months ago collecting original temperature data and now I have started presenting the results on www.hidethedecline.eu
I experienced a lack of will from the national meteorological institutes to freely share the tax paid data I asked for. I even had assistance from a large Danish Newspaper to ask the questions for me, send mails etc. I asked for raw data from datasets beginning before 1950, especially the non-coastal stations:

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

Data sources: Meteorological yearbooks, statistical yearbooks, World Weather Records, national archives, books, different databases (NACD, NORDKLIM etc.), web sites Tutiempo and more.
The number of existing longer temperature series is large. Even smaller European countries often has around 50-70 longer datasets available. And for example already in 1945 Spain collected temperatures from 500 stations.
In the following I will try to answer these questions:
1) What does original temperature data tell about the climate now?
2) What does original temperature data tell about adjustments in climate science?

Fig 2: You will need some patience if you want to collect original temperature data.
2. Methods
OAS and OAA locations – how geography determines temperature trends.
For all areas analysed (almost 20 countries by now) we see a large group of stations with warm temperatures trends after 1930 (“OAA” stations) but also a large group of stations with very little or no warm trend after around 1930 (“OAS” stations).
The classification of OAA versus OAS simply depends on geographical surroundings.

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

Fig 4
But Non-coastal stations can be divided further into Ocean Air Affected stations (“OAA”, marked yellow) and then Ocean Air Shelter stations (“OAS”, marked blue).
OAS areas thus have some similarities with valleys in general, but as illustrated above, the OAS areas cover a slightly different area than the valleys.
In general I have aimed to find average OAA temperature trends and average OAS temperature trends for the areas analysed. For each country analysed I have made comparison between national temperature trends as published by the “BEST” project and then the OAA and OAS temperature trends from original data. I want to know if BEST data use both the warm trended OAA data and the more cold trended OAS data. In addition, I have made comparisons of ECA&D data versus original for many countries and also HISTALP data versus original.
More info can be found on:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-introduction-267.php
3. Results: Adjustments of temperature data
3.1. Adjustments: HISTALP – by the Austrian ZAMG

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

Fig6
However, the valley stations in best possible shelter against ocean air (OAS) have all been adjusted by ZAMG to show warm temperature trends.
From Original data we can see, that the cold trended stations (OAS) are in fact in a comfortable majority in the Alpine area and I believe ZAMG should explain themselves.
More examples of HISTALP/ZAMG adjustments from many countries:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-histalp-264.php
More on original Alpine temperature data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php
3.2. Adjustments: ECA&D – by the Dutch KNMI
To evaluate ECA&D temperature data I have so far mostly studied the differences between temperature data from Tutiempo and ECA&D. Tutiempo do not change data after they first publish it. I have this from mail correspondence.
On the other hand, ECA&D frequently adjust their datasets and thus normally, ECA&D represents newer versions than Tutiempo. Therefore the difference ECA&D minus Tutiempo often tells us about the adjustments done lately to the data represented by ECA&D:

Fig 7
ECA&D temperature versions versus Tutiempo versions averaged for each nation.
For most countries analysed, ECA&D temperature data versions have warmer values for temperatures than Tutiempo in recent years. Especially for the years 2010-2012 ECA&D seems to add a lot of heat to data when they adjust.
I will ask some of you to download ECA data from these locations:
http://eca.knmi.nl/indicesextremes/customquerytimeseriesplots.php
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/europe.htm
Online data can change or disappear any minute…
More on the ECA&D adjusted data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-ecad-263.php
3.3 Adjustments: The BEST project
The BEST project collects data from different sources often already related to NOAA and NCDC. BEST often present multiple versions/copies of the same longer datasets already used repeatedly in climate science. BEST have not required the large bulk of existing temperature data from the national Meteorological institutes.

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

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

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

Fig 11
Average of Danish coastal temperature series from original data and then the 5 longer temperature series made available by DMI for the public and climate science including BEST. The blue graph is an average of all Danish OAS areas (all blue areas in fig 9) created from original data.
More on Denmark and South Sweden:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-denmark-and-south-sweden-270.php
3.3.3 BEST / HUNGARY
Fig 12
For the Hungarian Valley (one of the largest OAS area in Europe), the BEST team has used an OAS temperature station “Pecs”. Above, the Pecs temperature trend is shown together with other Hungarian stations. These original data do seem rather homogenous?

Fig 13
None the less, the BEST team adds around 0.7 K of warming to the Pecs data. BEST use a so called “Regional Expectation” for all countries i have analysed, and change original data so they approach these expectations. Best also claim that Hungary as a nation has experienced this warming trend.
More examples of how data from OAS stations has been avoided by BEST, see for example from fig 22 and onwards for German OAS stations:
Erfurt, Halle, Fulda, Kassel, Kaiserslautern, Mannheim, Bamberg, Hamburg, Kiel, Lubeck, Magdeburg, Nurnberg, Ulm, Augsburg, Leipzig, Arnsburg, Torgau, Bayreuth, Brausnchweig, Regenburg, Stuttgart and Darmstadt. (Ok, Hamburg is not an OAS station, but BEST can change data from these too…)
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-germany-276.php
I cannot document the fate of all temperature stations used by BEST and this is why I primarily aim to document the adjustments country for country, see more:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-best-265.php
3.3.4 BEST / UHI:
Best claim that UHI plays no role. But remember results for all 11 countries analysed; First BEST first avoids the cold trended stations (by deselecting or warm-adjusting OAS stations) and THEN they compare the remaining warm trended OAA stations with city stations. It is on this basis that BEST concludes that UHI is not an issue in climate data.
Here is how UHI affects “climate” data in real life:

Fig 14. Some Rhein-Ruhr stations illustrated together with some nearby stations. Base period 1900-1920. What flavour of Urban heat warm trend do we want?
3.3.5 BEST prefer unadjusted data
BEST also claim that they prefer unadjusted data over adjusted. So why did they not require the large bulk of unadjusted longer datasets from national meteorological institutes and year books like I did?

Fig15. From the BEST FAQ web site.
BEST adjustments leads to the ignoring of the cold trended stations, the stations from valleys (OAS areas). So is it true when BEST claim not to use adjusted data? The red box above is my suggestion to an update of their FAQ-text. See more in “Original temperature: BEST”.
4. RESULTS FROM ORIGINAL DATA

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

Fig 17
By using base period 1961-1990, we see that the OAS temperature datasets shown in fig 16 from different countries in Europe are in fact rather similar. That is, valleys not disturbed much by ocean air winds in different areas of Europe show almost the same signal, the same story.
In general, the warmer years in recent decades appear to have temperatures that resemble the warmer years before 1962.

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

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

Fig 20. Land stations in shelter against ocean air show that the warming 1930-60 was rather similar to the warming 1990-2010.
What does the missing warming of areas not much affected by ocean air temperature trends indicate?
My thoughts:

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

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

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

Fig23
From RUTI USA: The number in each 5×5 grid tells how much warmer or colder the decade 1998-2008 is compared to 1930-40. In many cases, the recent decade is half a Kelvin colder than the 1930´ies.
This illustration is taken from “RUTI: USA”.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/north-america/usa-part-1.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/south-america.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php
I think all in all on the described basis it is fair to conclude that the missing warming in areas in shelter of ocean air is likely to be a global phenomenon. Any protests?
Is it fair then to call the missing warming after around 1930-1940 of areas in shelter of ocean air a global problem for the CO2-theory?
Or do CO2-theory explain why temperature stations in best possible shelter against ocean air winds cannot really show warming after 1930-40?
PS: Please let me know if you have access to original temperature data, we need to expand the database of original temperature data.
Awesome stuff. That’s a heap of work. Well done. I have noted here in Oz that same difference in coastal vs inland temperature trends
See http://eyesonbrowne.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/is-it-getting-warmer-in-australia-well-that-depends-on-where-you-live/.
Ciao.
Alec Rawls
I was thinking along those lines, inland, away from the ocean there would be less cloud and more radiation to space at night, lowering Tmin and lowering the average. This is my experience where I live in the area indicated in Australia in Fig 21.
If so, then use Tmax only for climate purposes.
Frank Lansner says:
Greg,
you write: “could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?”
The ORI files are the ORIginal datasets, the ones taken from the original meteorological year books published long before things got political and perhaps criminal.
===
Yes, I know what they are , that’s why I’ve been asking for them, since you said you have that data.
Now I know English is not you main language, so which part of “could you please provide a link to the “ORI” data files from HISTALP?” are you having trouble understanding?
Thanks.
Apologies for being narky: I have noticed that charts on this, and similar blog sites are always poor quality. People need to learn basic charting / graphing skills. Charts always should have labelled axes and titles. The body text should always reference the chart directly (e.g. Figure xx shows us that…), rather than leaving the reader to guess the point you are trying to make. Additionally, acronyms should always be spelt out in full in the first instance of use in a piece of text. I found this article very difficult to read.
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/34/1/index.html
“Station-mode series are present in HISTALP as “homogenised” and as “original”.
…
Austrian hom- and ori-station-mode-series are downloadable for non-profit research without restrictions.”
DO YOU HAVEA LINK TO THAT DATA?
Frank
This is a very interesting piece of work. Well done. I will look at it in much greater detail over the next few days but in the meantime you might find these of relevance.
A few months ago I published this at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
It demonstrates that paleo reconstructions centred on 50 year data points don’t pick up the natural variability that occurs on annual and decadal basis and is shown on instrumental records. A bit like the fine grains of sand falling through a coarse sieve. The next graph is taken from it. It is fairly crude but sets the Hockey stick against CET. In it I had researched glacier movements. These are represented by the Blue rectangles-closed at top indicates glacier retreat, closed at bottom glacier advance. You can see a century long cold spell around 1200. The climate recovered then declined again. You can see a short lived glacier retreat around 1700 which lasted for 50 years before a temperature decline, then a warming again incorporating the present day.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
the last link goes to my article on arctic ice between 1920-1950. After reading hundreds of papers I have little doubt that arctic ice in the period declined to around todays levels before recovering again around 1960, before it started to decline again round the time of the first satellite data in 1979. Glaciers in the alps, the arctic and antarctic were also declining sharply at the time.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
i would doubt that it is any warmer today than during the 1920/1950 period. intriguingly phil jones believes that the 1730’s were only slightly cooler than the 1990’s. Since then in the UK temperatures have declined.
Good luck with your project
tonyb
@Claimsguy at 9:55 am
Whatever happened to the Watts 2012 paper?
Ditto. Who is reviewing the paper? Lois Lerner’s department at the IRS?
Justthefacts62, yes indeed, the Australian Coast does the trick to!!
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig3.jpg
Taken from RUTI Australia
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/australia.php
One thing so convincing to me is, that even though the NON-COASTAL trends in East versus West Australia is quite different, then in both cases, the respective COASTAL trends are around 0,6 K more warm trended. Its.. perfect …
Excellent work and fair questions.
Finnish meteorological institute has decided to publish a major part of it’s meteorological and oceanographic datasets as Open Data. http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/open-data-manual. I don’t know about data suitability for OAS analysis or data completeness/reliability in general, but it’s available electronically and for free of charge. It’s perhaps of assistance.
Greg, i have only a link to what i used from HISTALP/ZAMG, the homogenized data:
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/Statmod_AT_T01.html , see the ZIP files in the bottum, here fore Austria.
My original files has not been put online. At some point this is of course the goal but i dont want to face legal problems, so im not sure i can put these data in digital format online.
But I would like to hear opinions on this.
You can see much more in
“Original Temperatures: HISTALP”
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-histalp-264.php
and
“Original Temperatures: The Alps”
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php
You can also send me a mail, but I am a little slow in answering these days 🙂
At the moment the website Michael Smith News includes a discussion on record warm year in Australia. I would love to have your experts consider the facts presented by a blogger. It is a new topic for michael, although in general he is suspicious of Main Stream Media bias.
One of the world’s oldest stations is Hohenpeissenberg, Germany. Its records extend back to 1781.
The temps have always been recorded at 700, 1400 and 2100 hours since this time according to the “Mannheim hours”.
So no TOBs adjustments are required and one wonders why the US needs to have so many TOBs adjustments when the Head of the US weather bureau was already issuing edicts on using standard hours as early as the late-1800s.
Now Hohenpeissenberg is given special status by GISS (I guess due to its length and the fact that the monks running it knew that temperatures needed to measured at the same time of day unlike most climate temperature data adjusters today. I mean c’mon, people were not that stupid to just go around measuring temperature at different times of the day. )
Hohenpeissenberg has its own link at GISS Surface Temperature Analysis page.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt
(You can get updated data) and it shows cyclical changes in temperature (AMO-like) and temperatures were higher in the late 1700s and parts of the early 1800s than today (and BEST has completely different set of numbers for the station than these).
@holts at 1:02 pm
S Mosher if you don’t try and use all the data that is available(or don’t even try to get it!) then your results are not much use really!
My take is about 120 degrees different from yours. BEST takes a lot of pride in having 40,000 stations, but when you look at their record length and gaps you get on
(12/20/13 8:09 am)
Remember, BEST discards the absolute value and only considers the trend in temperatures, after slicing and dicing the records beyond recognition. (See Denver Stapleton Airport)
Another statistic from (RichardLH 8:31 am above)
Unique BEST Station IDs with any temperature records : 81370
1 degree Lat/Long grid cells >60 years coverage : 173
1 degree Lat/Long grid cells with any coverage : 9,660 (RichardLH 12/22 12:41 pm)
Total land area 1×1 deg grid cells = 18,792 (RichardLH 12/22 2:19 am)
You should not cherry pick data in a scientific study.
But you should cherry pit the data.
When I am preparing a meal, wholesomeness is a concern.
Keep the pits, the dirt, the stems, the flies, the maggots out of the food.
Garbage in, Garbage out applies to almost everything except pig raising.
Even with pigs, you better cook the final product properly.
======================================================================
I copied list of record highs and lows for Columbus Ohio into an Excel spreadsheet. I have the years 2002 (from http://archive.org/web/web.php , “TheWayBackMachine”), 2007, 2009, two from 2012, and 2013. All except 2002 were copied from here, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/cmhrec.htm at the time they were there.
If that is the kind of thing you’re looking for I’ll send it to you if you tell me how. But I do warn you that it was only intended to satisfy my own curiosity and use. If it something you I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing. (Of course, many of the list can be gotten directly from TheWayBackMachine though I know they don’t have 2007 but no records changed (were adjusted) between 2002 and 2007.
TYPO!!
“If it something you I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing.”
Should be:
“If it is something you want, I’d be glad to clarify anything on it that seems confusing.”
(The spreadsheet is not as confusing as my original sentence! 😎
@Bill Illis at 2:04 pm
One of the world’s oldest stations is Hohenpeissenberg, Germany. Its records extend back to 1781.
Out of curiosity, was it a mining town?
It might be heavily forested today, but what were the forests like 150-200 years ago?
Summit County, Colorado is forested by a near mono-culture lodgepole pine forest about 120-140 years old (end of life). In the late 1800’s, all the trees were cut down to support the mining boom. The forests were replanted. But there was human induced climate change over that century and a half.
Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
“Finnish meteorological institute has decided to publish a major part of it’s meteorological and oceanographic datasets as Open Data. ”
Brilliant, thankyou, at first glimpse i could not actually see data, i think i did not press the correct links.
Anyway, its interesting if this is raw data, but it also has some value if phoney.
Thanks
K.R. Frank
Bill Illis,
Hohenpeissenberg is located in the Northern frontier region of the Alps. So to speak where the Alps is about to raise up above from the lower surrounding areas. Therefore The Hohenpeissenberg station is to be considered Ocean Air Affecte, OAA, see Yellow area 14 (Yellow areas are OAA) :
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AORIT/Germany/Germanylarge.gif
Thus Hohenpeissenberg used by GISS is perhaps not that surpricing.
Quite near by we have German stations Garmisch Parten Kirchen and Mittenwalde (OAS area Blue 15 in shelter from Western winds) and these stations has much less warm trend. But they are not used by GISS, right?
I think the best source for unadjusted New Zealand data is here – you have to sign up but it is free and automatic:
Sign up for free access to NIWA’s raw climate data http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/
If you want to double check that it is the raw data the original Official Year books are all online and have the temperatures as reported at the time:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/digital-yearbook-collection.aspx
Finally this report of the INTERCOLONIAL METEOROLOGICAL CONFERENCE HELD AT MELBOURNE IN 1881, which can be found by searching on this site http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs (sorry I couldn’t work out how to give a direct link the the page, but you will find it no trouble)
outlines the decisions taken in 1881 on how the various meterological variables were to be collected in a systematic way across Australasia (ie both Australia and New Zealand). It also gives as an appendix the stations reporting regularly at that point in time across the various Australasian colonies, their latitude and longitude and height above sea level.
I should have added to my post on New Zealand stations, that the record also includes a number of sub-Antarctic islands – so it is of more interest than just New Zealand as such
Impressive Hercules work !
I hope Mosher and others will have a look at this within their own projects AND even request the data to be used in their own data basis (I assume Frank Lansner will share it freely)
Summary as I understood:
Ocean air sheltered stations (OAS) in Europe (and perhaps the whole world) show little or no warming since the previous warm period in approx. 1930-1960.
His theory is, that the sea surface has been warming since the little ice age, and ocean air also warmed coastal and other ocean air affected regions, but not OAS regions.
The greenhouse effect would have required OAS regions to warm as well, therefore, this result is not consistent with GHG theory (except for a very low sensitivity or a counteracting unknown effect). It is then also an indication, that the recovery of sea surface temperatures from the little ice age may not be due to GHGs.
Additionally, he shows, that OAS data is poorly represented in global temperature data sets, such as BEST, and that some data, used as input had already been “pasteurized”.
Manfred…!
You could make a living out of producing fine concise resúmes, fantastic. And on top, you actually got my point perfectly!
Thanks!!!
“I think all in all on the described basis it is fair to conclude that the missing warming in areas in shelter of ocean air is likely to be a global phenomenon. Any protests?
Is it fair then to call the missing warming after around 1930-1940 of areas in shelter of ocean air a global problem for the CO2-theory?
Or do CO2-theory explain why temperature stations in best possible shelter against ocean air winds cannot really show warming after 1930-40?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Frank:
Concerning comparison of coastal station historical record of temperature. As someone who lives near and at times on the coast, and who additionally forecast the weather professionally at RAF bases on both coast (RAF Valley, Angelsey Wales ) and inland in Lincolnshire. I detect an obvious (?) missing variable in this analysis. And that is SST’s.
Coastal temperature is greatly regulated by on-shore winds, which in turn are greatly regulated by sea temperatures. What about sea temperatures in the period 1920 –1950? How were they behaving?
Well it turns out that both the PDO and the AMO were in +ve (warm) phases…..
http://i53.tinypic.com/a0gf2g.jpg
Also, from the above, it can be seen the cold phases coincided ~1960-90.
Now, this cycle would necessarily have affected coastal stations to a greater extent than inland ones. Generally in an onshore wind-regime, coasts will have greater sunshine than inland stations (convection/stratification of cloud due higher temp) and sea-breeze affects tending to clear coastal cloud in summer. So the warmer SST’s in the 20-50’s era would have impacted coastal affected stations preferentially over sheltered ones with temperature more directly correlated to SST’s.
Then another factor appears…
It is also a well accepted fact that global temperature for the period ~1960-80’s were affected by “global dimming”…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed”
This dimming effect (of darker clouds) would have had a greater impact away from coasts due the greater cloud fraction there and hence an enhanced –ve radiative imbalance than just cloud fraction alone.
To further quantify this effect, whether or not my reasoning is objected too, then at the very least, a correlation over the period of the air temperature trend needs to be carried out against surface sea temperature anomalies in both the Northern Atlantic and N Pacific.
@Margeret:
The NZ material looks very interesting indeed, thank you very much. Only little thing i would have prefered is, if the data was found on photografs of the origina year books 🙂 But I think that this is ok anyway, at least it takes only a couple of original year books to test if these data are in fact original
@TB
The coastal temperatures – often from lighthouses, sometimes even on islands – are mostly representing the MAT (Marine Air Temperature), not SST. MAT oscillates a little more than SST.
If I shoul obtain MAT (or SST) for, Netherlands data going back to year 1900 preferably, then i would need also raw data for this, and raw data specifically for the waters near the Dutch coast.
I believe there is a CRU database for MAT and a few others, but when in fact I already have the air temperatures on the coast, i think its not that much of a loss that I dont also have the MAT recorded on ships near the coast. I dont think really that my points are dependent of this, but I have had the thought at times.
BUT!
On a more global basis i think i do what you seek, see fig 3 in this article on global coastal temperature trends: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/coastal-temperature-stations.php
Frank:
Just 2 mins of looking and I have data from the station I worked at in 1987 – going back to 1930.
it’s 03302..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/valleydata.txt
And a few mins more….
Also for inland Oxford is available back to 1853
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/oxforddata.txt
or Sheffield 1883
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/sheffielddata.txt
In Scotland there’s Stornoway 1873:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/stornowaydata.txt
and Eskdalenuir 1914:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/eskdalemuirdata.txt
Have you see this paper?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf
I still maintain that a sea fetch will have high correlation with SST’s of closest approach to the station of interest.
Yours