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.
great work Frank….I did something along these lines for Arctic stations in preparation for my book ‘Chill’ (2009) and went through all available online material – usually NOAA stations, selecting only those stations with a record going back far enough to capture the 1920-1940 warming and enough to the present to capture the very recent Arctic warming (2000-2005 as I finalised the draft in 2008). It was clear from all stations that there was a double-humped camel and not a hockey stick! Yet the camel disappeared in regionally homogenised data sets – I think a Swedish professor took NOAA/IPCC to task on the Scandinavian results which disappeared the first hump.
Out of 32 stations with long records, only 5 had warmer second peaks around 2000, and 3 more or less the same, all others had higher first peaks around 1940. When I looked again around 2011, there were more high second peaks – about half of the stations – and NOAA’s average for all its Arctic stations now showed a distinctly higher second peak – but of course, this would have included adjustments.
I note your interest in Czech data….if you are local to Czech, do drop me an email as I am currently visiting the country and having some very enlightening talks with geophysicists in Prague about geomagnetic correlates with atmospheric wind patterns! You can get the address from my ethos website above.
Note to Henry Clark! and all others at wuwt who like to take a swipe at ‘environmentalists’….I am such with a long history of working to clean the oceans of pollutants….you guys need to appreciate your environmental history or get condemned to repeat it – it was activists that cleaned up most of the pollution in the US and Europe….NOT governments, who always sided with industrial interests – with the honourable exception of Scandinavian governments and the Germans. When it came to stopping the dumping of radioactive waste in the world’s oceans (led by UK and not participated in by the US), it was Greenpeace and the Seamen’s Unions (in response to their activism) that stopped the dumping – I was then a scientist/legal activist advising NGOs such as Greenpeace, AND when the governments eventually got the message that they had to clean up their act, I helped the UN create better protection of the marine environment. I actually wrote a peer-reviewed paper on what was wrong with the UN system, but nobody refers to it! Thus, the IPCC repeat all the old ‘mistakes’, especially the reliance on models.
Those were the days before the corrupt influences of AGW. I admit now that I stand alone among environmentalists….they have all lost their critical faculties (just as happens with many bloggers on WUWT when they pontificate on world development issues and environmentalism). It is not just a sad state of affairs but a dangerous and unprecedented alliance of ‘greens’, bankers, brokers, UN bureaucrats, turbine makers, and of course, computer modellers….but it does not help to blanket them with terms such as fascists/commies/socialists as if that described anything useful….this is a modern syndrome for which we don’t yet fully have the vocabulary (I am working on that!).
Thanks again Frank for this mine of useful information….I agree with others, it is one of the most significant posts at wuwt.
Frank
I have seen the US Weather survey records in the reference section of the library but not the UK ones. I will specifically ask, but it may be that as it is data used by the Met office scientists (who are on the floor above) they keep the material in their own personal libraries or on digital files. Much of the data will be in Met office reports.
Just to ensure I know your exact requirements I understand you are looking for the original daily meteorological records for each of the UK stations. (which will include temperatures, wind speed, rainfall etc) Is that correct? If so, have you got a particular time span that you want me to concentrate on?
all the best
tonyb
Australia’s raw data is available here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/
And the adjusted Acorn-Sat data is here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-network
I’ve done some charting close to home and the Acorn-Sat adjustments are obvious!
Frank Lansner,
I admire your strategy and your in-process evaluations of your ongoing efforts.
Please advise if you need some addition manpower/brainpower. { I am retired. : ) }
John
@Peter Taylor
thankyou for your kind words! But no I dont live in the Czech Republic but I have friends there, in Olomoud.
Environmentalists!
I find your writing very uplifting, and I think i am in the same boat, perhaps “worse” than you. I have a passion for wind wills even though it may be irrationa. Just the feeling of standing next to this “thing” that just make energy out of the thin air!! Amazing, truly.
I like very much if people understand that being sceptic about climate fraud is not and never will be a political agenda, its a scientific opinion. Thats why it nice to have also “environmetalists” aboard the ship, let people know that we all want to protect our Earth – obviously – but lies and fraud is just not the way.
I’ve made this suggestion before, in other venues;
Someone ought to collect a data set from microfiche’d newspapers.
I know the collection methods are not consistent. I know the data could hardly be considered reliable. BUT; it hasn’t been adjusted. No one out there is going around changing microfiche archives to support the AGW orthodoxy. To the extent that it exists (and it does) it is unmolested.
If you want a large data set that covers a long time span and which could not have been manipulated, newspaper archives may be your best bet.
Maybe you could recruit a network, similar to what surface station did.
Just my $0.02
tonyb says:
“I have seen the US Weather survey records in the reference section of the library but not the UK ones. I will specifically ask…”
Are you saying that there perhaps are NO meteorological year books in UK for the british people to see? Not even in libraries? Its great that you will ask! Maybe at least you can find out what exactly those books are titled?
Tonyb:
“Just to ensure I know your exact requirements I understand you are looking for the original daily meteorological records for each of the UK stations….”
Actually not. Meteorological year books normally comes in first a daily section and then often section 2 is Monthly/yearly summaries. These are what i want photographs of. All countries even banana republics have such year books from at least 1920-30. My guess is that UK have these books from around 1850.
its absolutely fantastic that you will assist here, and no matter the result, then the knowledge it gives is a step forward.
K.R. Frank
Great work.
Lately, I also had this idea that most warming was occurring near of large bodies of water. I think the Great Lakes might be an other place where the temperature has increased more in the recent period. I wonder if it is possible to show whether the region is warming out of normal or catching up to temperatures that other regions had experienced 65 years ago. My guesstimate shows that the difference between Toronto and Montreal(1.8° of latitude) should be greater than Montreal and Quebec(1.3° of latitude). But both pairs now have 2°C of difference. Between the warm year of 1953 and the warm year of 2012. Toronto TMAX has warmed by 1.0°C, Montreal by 0.7°C and Quebec by around 0.3°C. There might be something there.
Also, it is possible to do a simple cheap adjustment for TOBS. You can average the 5 days max and min. The time of observation cannot have as much of an effect over a 5 days period. And if 5 days is not enough, go for 7+…
One thing that annoys me a lot about normal reconstruction of temperature, they tend to conclude to a large decrease in diurnal temperature range. But they do not offer a good explanation for it. In many regions in Canada, if I compare a station from the 1940s with a station from the 2000s and both stations have the same DTR, there is often a cooling signal. It is important to be careful because in the 1940s, the stations with lower DTRs often had lower TMAXs possibly due to urban pollution(wood burning or else…). I have often heard people say that CO2 could reduce the rate of cooling. But if CO2 had removed 1°C of cooling per day, the temperature would necessarily increase at this rate. Clearly it is not the case. I think only two factors can affect the DTR:
1- The daily variation in heat content goes down. Clouds or pollution could be responsible.
2- The amount of matter affected by the DTR goes up. If the daily variation of heat content is spread over a larger portion of the atmosphere, the variation of temperature would be smaller. Also, more evaporation or snow melting during the day can also limit the variation in temperature.
I don’t know if the daily variation in temperature has been measured to happen at a greater altitude. I wonder why satellites do not evaluate the DTR at different pressures. Also, If the DTR is really going down, the 1-day variance or 3-day variance could possible be affected. A lowering of the DTR is a lowering of variability, it should not be limited to only the day to day variability. But in some cases, if you compare the warmest and the coolest stations of a region. The warmest station has warmer nights in general. But at the end of a sequence of very cold nights, the warmest station might end up just as cold as the coolest station. It looks like the warmest station needs time to release its accumulated heat. So a change in variability can also be caused by the UHI…
We need more good work like this, there is a lot to be done…
Said in a more simple way, the comparison between different periods of time should be done between stations with a similar siting. A constant geographic position is better, but it does not guaranty a constant siting. It should be better to look for pairs of station with a similar DTR and similar variability from day to day, similar amount of rain etc… The comparison could also be done with station a long distance apart if it is possible to calculate their theoretic normal. Constant geographic siting is not constant siting, so it is important to look to other stats.
Marc77
“t should be better to look for pairs of station with a similar DTR and similar variability”
Thank you for comment –
This is correct! and its a bit like saying: Dont extend OAA with OAS and vice versa. Ocean Air affted stations has smaller DTR , so your point I´d say is similar to mine.
K.R. Frank
Years back I wanted to look at the old NWS Heating Degree Days. I was contemplating purchasing a Heat pump and wanted to know how it would compare to an area where I lived before and used one. Found the data tables and wondered why most of the cities listed started at 1975 but didn’t think much of it. There were many that started in the 40’s and 50’s
4 or 5 years ago I had a brainstorm, “If it is getting warmer, then the total degree heating days would get lower in value.” Since I had that Idea I have not been able to find any data on the internet that goes back to the 40’s or 50’s any more. I know it exists, I saw it.
Where di it go? what will that information tell us? How many fewer HDD’s are there today than in 1950 for cities in the USA, EU, etc?
In New Zealand, newspapers have been archived from 1840 or earlier, and these contain weather information. The newspapers have now been scanned and converted to searchable text, up to about 1945 so far. I have seen weather information as far back as 1842.
Here is weather information for 1869:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2qk1jk2.jpg
I intend to save the page images and put all the data in a spreadsheet. This will take a long time!
Hi Jaymam,
You can only get daily data this way? And from Auckland only? I think there will have to be better ways to do the trick. Are you in New Zealand? If so, perhaps goto the national library and look for meteorological year books for New Zealand and Australia, that would be very helpful. These have a section with monthly and yearly summaries for most stations. That would be much more effective.
All the best!!
K.R: Frank
First, great post. Second, I haven’t found one post where Steven Mosher called you or anyone else for that matter, a moron…..yet. That may be a record in itself.
Edit: in the red box in #3: “to a large
extendextent”Hiding of the public’s meteorological records is data-crime.
Brian, Correction is done, thank you!
K.R. Frank
Frank
I seached for Auckland weather, because that’s where I live. As you can see, those words are high-lighted. Yes, there may be weather data published in books. However I want raw data, with no processing at all. I can do any processing needed. It is more likely that the data published in a dozen different newspapers back in the 1800s will not have been altered by someone with an agenda.
I have obtained Auckland data from everywhere I can find, and that is from GISS and NIWA. Here is about all I have:
http://i41.tinypic.com/5u07q8.jpg
I don’t understand why there is no recent data. I see no hockey stick.
@Jaymam
Ok thanks!
But the printed meteorological annual books, published every year do have the original values from most stations normally. Its much faster because there is normally a section with yearly and monthly numbers for each stations. Meteorological year books are pretty much obligatory on national libraries, but I cant travel to each country due to work and family, so that limits me a lot.
Anyways, best of luck.!!
The problem with global temperature record graphs — even if one is able to obtain an unadjusted record going back 100+ years; is that one is not comparing the same station data from the past compared to the present.
There were less stations in the past and new stations were being added all the time over the past century, along with some being dropped. A graph showing the global average temperature for the year 1900 – 2000 contains different stations for the year 1900 compared to what the year 2000 does. Essentially, the 2 years are not comparable (different data sets) — yet there they are on the same graph. This is either misleading or has the potential to be, as different sets of data (different stations) are being compared on the same graph of the temperature trend over the last 100+ years as if it’s the same data source.
Secondly, and this is the more important issue related to the different station data for different years — is what is the mix of rural/urban stations? Since urban stations show a higher temperature (on average) compared to rural stations (on average), having more urban stations in the mix will increase the overall average temperature of even an unadjusted data set. The point is, that if more urban stations have been added to the temperature record over the past 100+ years, then a positive temperature trend will show up on the graph just from that fact alone.
For example, suppose in the year 1900 the station mix is 50/50 rural/urban and that urban stations have on average a 1.0C higher temperature than rural stations do. The urban stations in this case would be raising the overall average temperature 0.5C compared to just the rural stations alone. Now move to the year 2000 — what is the mix of urban/rural stations now? Suppose the mix in 2000 is now 20/80 rural/urban. Then the urban stations would now be adding 0.8C to the average of the rural stations. A 0.3C increase over a century by just the changing mix of rural/urban stations.
I used 1.0C higher average for urban stations just as an example, but maybe the figure is higher and it may have also increased over the years compounding the effect on a graph showing the global average. Adding more urban (or rural) stations with a higher and higher UHI effect wold increase the average global temperature data even more.
What is the change in the mix of rural/urban stations from the year 1900 to the present in the temperature sets like GISS or HADCRUT4? What account has been made of the increase in the global average from just changing the mix of rural/urban stations?
@James Baldwin Sefton
says:
January 7, 2014 at 8:24 am
“Australia’s raw data is available here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/
And the adjusted Acorn-Sat data is here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/#tabs=Data-and-network
I’ve done some charting close to home and the Acorn-Sat adjustments are obvious!”
James,
It seems your publishing of this page internationally has crashed it, or perhaps BOM is too embarrassed to have this info available to the public and have “temporally” closed it down.
Ps love to see what you have on Oz comparisons with Acorn.
In Fig 22 you state that “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.” Having lived most of my life in the upper Midwest, I would suggest that much of the midwest is actually more affected by Southern Gulf air masses than Pacific air masses. Just wondering if you should account for or at least note this in your study. Great work overall.
Dear Larry,
One of the main advantages of working with the huge number of stations avaiable from meteorological yearbooks etc. is, that the for example change of station siting or any other error becomes easily detectable. Check out “Original Temperatures: The Alps” here we have more than 150 stations represented , hereof over 90 in OAS sitings. The odds that these 90 stations – that show pretty much the same temperature trends – shoulld all show something wrong is not possible.
A change in siting – that you mention – would affect one station in at one particular point in time it if this siting change results in a notable change that year for that station it would stick our from the other 90 stations from that year.
So, working with this huge number of stations from rather small areas is a good approach. The typical alternative: Mostly OAA stations and large urban stations , and much fewer stations is not scientific useful.
@DTFoz
Thank you !
Its true that the US Midwest at times have winds originating from the South, the Mexican Golf.
However the longer periods with the dominating Western winds, plus Nothern and Eastern winds are much larger that the periods with Southern winds. Therefore in the US Midwest it is only a smaller fraction of the time that winds from ocean can influence temperature trends.
(Also, if you go near to the equatorial region it seems that ocean temperature trends has little heat trend only. I dont know if this has an impact.)
CO2 theory? Do you suggest that C02 is not a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in our atmosphere? Do you expect that with ever increasing global populations demanding access to electricity that C02e ppm will not continue to increase in the current mod us operand i? I understand the motivations of the skeptics and naysayers. I have trouble understanding why climate scientists would want to falsify data. To what end? As a conservative person, given current understanding of greenhouse gasses, I feel we should work to mitigate the problem as soon as possible so as to reduce the cost and impact.
@J Hosfield
You write: “Do you suggest that C02 is not a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in our atmosphere?”
Dear J Hosfield. I simply present data as they are. And I simply point out that the bulk orignal data is often not used in climate science, and data is in fact kept away from public access.
On my religion: I am honest when I say to you that there seem to be no warming in areas over land in areas where ocean air do not dominate temperature trends, then its true.
This is NOT supporting that the very small changes in CO2 forcing should have led to a enormous warming at all. Perhaps some warming that is so modest that it is hard to even measure in the temperature data. Maybe.
This is what data tell us. Are we then “naysayers” if we mention this?
Those who wants dissenting voices silenced, are they the ones that will ensure progress to humanity?
CO2:
In 2008 on WUWT i wrote this article. No one has ever managed to argue against the findings, please read, I would be happy to hear your comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
K.R. Frank