World temperature records available via Google Earth
Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia have made the world’s temperature records available via Google Earth.
The Climatic Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (CRUTEM4) land-surface air temperature dataset is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.
The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before.
Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.
The move is part of an ongoing effort to make data about past climate and climate change as accessible and transparent as possible.
Dr Tim Osborn from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit said: “The beauty of using Google Earth is that you can instantly see where the weather stations are, zoom in on specific countries, and see station datasets much more clearly.
“The data itself comes from the latest CRUTEM4 figures, which have been freely available on our website and via the Met Office. But we wanted to make this key temperature dataset as interactive and user-friendly as possible.”
The Google Earth interface shows how the globe has been split into 5° latitude and longitude grid boxes. The boxes are about 550km wide along the Equator, narrowing towards the North and South poles. This red and green checkerboard covers most of the Earth and indicates areas of land where station data are available. Clicking on a grid box reveals the area’s annual temperatures, as well as links to more detailed downloadable station data.
But while the new initiative does allow greater accessibility, the research team do expect to find errors.
Dr Osborn said: “This dataset combines monthly records from 6,000 weather stations around the world – some of which date back more than 150 years. That’s a lot of data, so we would expect to see a few errors. We very much encourage people to alert us to any records that seem unusual.
“There are some gaps in the grid – this is because there are no weather stations in remote areas such as the Sahara. Users may also spot that the location of some weather stations is not exact. This is because the information we have about the latitude and longitude of each station is limited to 1 decimal place, so the station markers could be a few kilometres from the actual location.
“This isn’t a problem scientifically because the temperature records do not depend on the precise location of each station. But it is something which will improve over time as more detailed location information becomes available.”
This new initiative is described in a new research paper published on February 4 in the journal Earth System Science Data (Osborn T.J. and Jones P.D., 2014: The CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset: construction, previous versions and dissemination via Google Earth).
For instructions about accessing and using the CRUTEM Google Earth interface (and to find out more about the project) visit http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/. To view the new Google Earth interface download Google Earth, then click here CRUTEM4-2013-03_gridboxes.kml.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My grid cell has been [warmer in the past] and it is cooling now. I’m not a big believer in AGW. Thanks CRU!
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/crutem4-is-on-google-earth/
I meant “warmer in the past”. Not “warming”. Darn.
Will I be able to access unadjusted data? Is it OK to change the data if it makes my model output look like hash?
Stephen Richards says:
Peresumably these are the adjusted, sanitised and greenpiss approved temperatures. What’s the point. Let’s see the RAW date. You know, the stuff they haven’t adulterated in the name of CO² tax.
==
Sorry Stephen , apparently they “lost” the original data years ago.
https://mapsengine.google.com/11291863457841367551-04024907758807700184-4/mapview/?lat=44.2031&lng=-89.441&z=8
Great so now they can feed google earth with fraudulent, tainted data and say ‘presto, see it really is warming….’ and hide all declines behind google. In this vein Jan ’14 will be the warmest ever month in US history.
Credit where credit is due – in their introduction to CRUTEM 4, CRU say (caps mine):
‘These datasets have been widely used for assessing THE POSSIBILITY OF anthropogenic climate change’
Three little words that make a world of difference – and sadly, could get someone up before the inquisition.
Checked a couple stations quickly and my gridcell in the Rocky Mountains of Canada bears little resemblance to the station data from Environment Canada. Fun project tonight will be to get every station from the gridcell and take a look.
ferdberple says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:26 am
“Assuming that accuracy was the objective.”
As an Engineer and Scientist I try to logically follow only that path.
‘Dave in Canmore says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:10 am
Checked a couple stations quickly and my gridcell in the Rocky Mountains of Canada bears little resemblance to the station data from Environment Canada. Fun project tonight will be to get every station from the gridcell and take a look.”
CRU do not use EnvCanada.
1. they use data that has been homogenized.
2. Env Canada data comes in two formats QC and non QC. so unless you are careful
you may be comparing junk data to homogenized data. The guy named sunshine hours
made this mistake. So, check the quality flags
Real transparency would allow “data drilling” into each record to view all adjustments and their rationale and provenance. The way it’s supposed to be.
You can compare the station data with Berkeley Earth and with http://www.rimfrost.no for example, unless you assume that they are all in on the conspiracy.
No applause, just cool, arms folded, healthy, skepticism.
Repeat a lie often enough… .
********************************************
Re: “…all in on the conspiracy.” (Mallett at 10am) — It doesn’t require a “conspiracy” for a bunch of people, all independently motivated by essentially the same thing (money and or power), all aware of a given con game, to act corruptly.
I.E., having the same goal is NOT necessarily being on the same team. Every runner in a race is aiming for the finish line, only a few are on the same team.
***********************************************************
Re CRU: Once someone is a known l!ar, to trust anything they say is irrational, thus, here:
Do NOT trust — ONLY VERIFY.
So the people at CRU, Rimfrost and Berkeley Earth are all motivated by money and / or power ? And they all think they can gain money and / or power by producing the same false station temperatures from all over the world, without anybody noticing, except those who say that the station temperatures must be false (without evidence) because all those people are not to be trusted ?
Mosher: “The guy named sunshine hours made this mistake.”
Mosher prefers heavily homogenized data.
It’s funny what catches your eye while browsing about.
Nice to see that CRUTEM4 on Google Earth has the Great Lakes area 9°F (5°C) warmer today than in 1880. Don’t think history agrees there though but will have to check this out. As the lakes completely freeze over today they can at least feel so much warmer after viewing this warming data, but I bet many don’t agree this day of Feb 6, 2014.
Per this map at 717491 — PORT ARTHUR up north and to the west of Lake Superior the trend went nearly linear from a low average at 31°F in about 1883 to a high average of 42°F in about 1933, a 11 degree warming trek upward pre-AGW, more than even the averaged grid area before that temperature station was evidently discontinued. Hmm. Drilling down to the station level is going to be rather amusing and something to do for for the next two weeks until it is projected to finally get back above freezing, we keep hovering some twenty degrees below normal. But I must say this does make it so much easier to browse about but including the adjustment differentials sure would put it all in one place.
In 2009, CRU admitted that:
“Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
The raw data has ceased to exist.
if the CRU told me it was raining I go outside to check , that level of distrust is one they have fully earned.
To be fair, I don’t think Mosh just likes homogenised data – but like all of us, he does like his data to be verified via some form of quality control – which is a perfectly valid stance!
However, and this is the crux that the data keepers (and the data ‘pushers’) don’t like to shout about – many of the QC procedures are either computerised checks/algorithms (rerun on previous computer entered datasets), or were manually made, and not ‘recorded’ as demonstrated in Harry-readme.txt. The bottom line being that we (public) usually have to accept that the presented data (i.e. the stuff from the datakeepers, homogenised or otherwise) is correct, as we have very little means to check it. What causes my personal continued skepticism about the data is that whenever anyone seems to check it (especially individual station data), they nearly always find inexplicable adjustments, or at best, poorly explained or simply unjustified ‘adjustments’. Now, I accept that the adjustments may well be justified, but without detailed explanation – how do we know?
Even drilling down to the station data gains nothing, unless you can see what QC and adjustments (as required, and as explained) were made to it.
KNR says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm
I think it’s worse than that – I wouldn’t even bother to go and check, as I’d fully expect it to be the opposite!
Nick Stokes said February 6, 2014 at 1:47 am –
[If you want unadjusted station data, it’s all on the GHCN unadjusted file.]
That might lead up false alleyways Nick. And yes I realise PDJ himself has suggested this in recent years.
If anybody wants to check what CRU do to data they have to get the CRU station strings they actually use at various stages in their process.
In another time summaries of two versions were published – and I have an html version of their 1986 Southern Hemisphere book –
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/index.htm
SH stations were only several hundred then so it is easier to try and follow what was done.
Appendix A lists “Station history Information and Homogeneity Assessment Details” – something we never see post 1991.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/tr027_60.gif – an example
Appendix B lists the fewer – “Stations used in the gridding algorithm”
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/tr027_72.gif
When you dig back beyond CRU’s WMO stations into National data – prepare for various surprises – such as Sydney Airport transmogrifies into the WMO Sydney used by CRU. In the case of some Perth data CRU quote – I tried to get the source but despite asking the BoM – never found what station it came from.
I think Harry saw the scene clearer than most of us ever could.
Tez says: February 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm
“The raw data has ceased to exist.”
The raw data has not ceased to exist. It sits, as it always did, with the national met offices, from which CRU had copies. Organisations like GHCN make it conveniently available.
So wuwt is happy with more lies being promoted by CRU….who would have thought.
RichardLH says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:04 am
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 5:47 am
“Thanks. Just a simple engineering point of view :-)”
A very good point of view.
Exactly, grid cells create false weighting that doesn’t represent the data samples in the first place.
Anyone remember December 2010 for the UK?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/anomacts/2010/12/2010_12_MeanTemp_Actual.gif
It was an extremely cold month with the CET (not shown above) only just being the 2nd coldest December on record in the data set, going back to the 17th century. What did the grid cell version show covering the UK in December? Between 0.5 c and 1.0.c above normal and that’s when I realized what a waste of time grid cell data was, it doesn’t represent the Instrumental data stations accurately at all.
Will repeat that again, the grid cell data showed between 0.5 c and 1.0 c above normal. (in the light pink/red color)
This was the anomaly of the same month with the baseline the coldest period available here.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/anomacts/2010/12/2010_12_MeanTemp_Anomaly_1961-1990.gif
Still off the scale for most of the UK.
Two years ago I put all the hadcrut3 station data up on an interactive map to drill down to the data http://clivebest.com/world/Map-data.html.