Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate"

Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 15th February, 2010
S >>

by Frank Lansner

[Revised 20 feb 2010]

In recent years the Swedish scientist from Stockholm University, Karlén,  has tried to create attention to the fact the Scandinavian temperatures when represented by IPCC cannot be recognized in the real data from the Scandinavian temperature stations:

fig 1
Left: Karlen made a plot of 25 data series from the NordKlim database.
Right: IPCC´s temperature graph for the area does not reflect the actual Scandinavnian temperature graphs.(source: )

IPCC shows temperatures around year 2000 should be approximately 0,7 K higher than the peak around 1930-50, whereas the actual data collected by Karlen shows that year 2000 temperatures equals the 1930-50 peak, perhaps even lower.
Was Karlen wrong? To evaluate this, lets check out the National meteorological institues of the respective Scandinavian countries:
fig 2
Only Denmark shows slightly higher temperatures around year 2000 than in year 1930-50. 0,1 – 0,3 K warmer? However, the Danish Area around  3% of the overall area. For the vast majority of the Scandinavian area shows year 2000 temperatures just like the 1930-40 peak, Sweden maybe a tiny fall, Norway a tiny increase. Denmark is also the area of Scandinavia with far highest population density, and thus Denmark is likely to show more City heat effects (UHI) than the rest of Scandinavia.
So, With good confidence, we can say that Karlens data from Nordklim matches the opinions of the highest authority on Scandinavian temperatures. The very significant temperature peak around 1930-40 has been reduced almost removed totally. And here Scandinavian Islands that to some degree also represents Sea temperatures – and due to their lower populations are more free of any potential City heat (UHI). Here data fom SMHI:
fig 3
Scandinavian Ocean temperatures indicated from Iceland, Jan Mayen and Faroe Islands actually shows a clear pattern of lower temperatures in year 2000 than in around 1930-40. In general we see: The further from population, the cooler temperature trends.
I found on the net temperature data from Kategat and the north sea (“Skagerak”). This ocean area is placed in the most populated area of Scandinavia, but still, no measurements where taken in cities, obviously:
fig 4
Again, no IPCC-warming here either. (
For Finland I also found these data, which definitely shows colder year 2000 than 1940:

Here Scandinavian temperatures 1900 – 2000 cleaned from trend lines. Still no sign of global warming in Scandinavia.
fig 6

The “NEU” area.
The “NEU” area is different from the Scandinavian area so to understand the IPCC warming trend over Scandinavia, we have to examine the “NEU” area.
The NEU area is defined as -10W/40E x 48N/75N:
Fig 7.
The exact area of “NEU” is for some reason (?) not shown in the legend right under the figure 9.12 in the IPCC report AR4, but in an appendix later in AR4.
So the few IPCC AR4 readers that actually uses time to investigate the Scandinavian discrepancy will see that the actual area from the “NEU” for some reason does not stop around 55N, just between the NEU and the SEM graphic as would be expected. No, for some reason, IPCC has chosen to include areas far down in the “SEM” area on their graphic.
What is the consequence of expanding the NEU area further south than 55N? And why not stop at a round number 50N? Why 48N? Here are temperature trends for Hadrcrut 10W/40E:
fig 8
The 2 upper graphs made using hadcrut gridded data 5x5, the lower by hadcrut stations 48N-50N. So, there is more and more heat trend the more southern areas we include in “NEU”.
Second, we see that ”NEU” on the IPCC graphic includes the big Norwegian Island, Spitsbergen, but when checking out, this “NEU” area does not at all include Spitsbergen for calculating temperatures. (There is no warming trend 1940-2000 for Spitsbergen.)
The last point of IPCC´s “NEU” graphic is year 2000. However, this point represents data 1999-2005. So, in my case especially Swedish national temperatures are hard to find on the net for later years than year 2000. SMHI does show long temperature trends for 2 larger cities only(!) that shows clear warming trend. They – unlike overall Swedish temperatures that shows no warming – are easy to find. Uppsala and Stockhom SMHI shows. For Finland, I found overall national temperatures AFTER 1950 on the official national meteorological site. The peak around 1940 was not shown - "hidden" perhaps. However for Finland its rather easy to find national temperatures on the net other places than their national meteorological site.

The averaging method:
The IPCC graph is hadcrut data (Brohan 2006), so how can IPCC show hadcrutdata so surpricingly rid of the decline after 1940? It appears impossible, as some readers suggest. This is due to the averaging method. IPCC used a rather different area than shown on their graphic for the (strongly corrected) hadcrut data. On top of this, the IPCC have chosen an averaging method of ten years collected in one point. And the peak around the middle of the 1930´ies has thus been diveded by separating in 1926-1935 and 1936-1945. The peak is thus almost gone.
Here is a normal 10 yr running mean curve for -10W/40E x 50N-75N:
fig 9
And see the "magic" going on when dividing the 1930´ies peak into 2 10-year periods: It gone!
fig 10
The cold peak around 1942 seen in fig 8 is strongest in the 48N-50N band.
Where doe this bring us?
IPCC has put a warm-trend curve over a huge area of Scandinavia (that has no warming trend in original) because:
1) The NEU area does not include the full area incl Spitsbergen even though the graphic shows this.
2) The NEU area reaches down and uses warmer trends from the higher populated areas in the middle of Europe (down to paris, Wienna etc) - an area that according to their graphic should belong to their "SEM" data and not "NEU" data.
3) Their averaging method splits up the 1930´ies warm peak so we cannot see that it was just as warm around 1935-40 as it is today. Obviously, for the whole debate of global warming such an information is relevant and should appear to the reader.
Summa: IPCC does not show directly what "NEU" is by placing this information in a distant appendix. In reality, all readers that does not use hours to investigate this will get an impression of a warming Scandinavia and this is indeed misleading.

So without "doing anything wrong" IPCC misleads perhaps 99% of the readers?


Thanks for reading, Frank Lansner & Nicolai Skjoldby
Articles by Frank on WATTS UP WITH THAT:

Last changed: 22nd February, 2010 at 00:18:26



"Reviewer" suggestion By Unknown on 2nd March, 2010 at 15:03:25
"@OB: We could use your sharp eye for details By Administrator on 19th February, 2010 at 18:03:25
Dear OB,
As you call yourself a skeptic, and you apparently have a sharp eye for details, it would be nice to get you on board. We are only Frank and I, and we both have work to do besides this what we do here in our spare time for our own money. So as mentioned elsewhere on this site, any help is welcome. So if you feel this is something for you, we would be happy to include you in the team as a reviewer.
Please inform.
Best regards,
Nicolai Skjoldby"

Dear Nicolai & Frank

I'm sorry not to reply before - I have been very busy, and also thinking very carefully about what you say. I'm afraid I don't think I can take up your suggestion to join your team as a reviewer, for three reasons:

(1) I don't really have the time at the moment, and would hate to let you down by not doing what needed to be done - or worse still, feel so obliged to do the work for you, that I neglected other important matters of my own.

(2) Even if I DID find the time, my scientific and mathematical abilities are not really up to the job. The fact is that I have very, very little specialist knowledge in the field - I am an actor and an art researcher, not a scientist.....I even failed my maths & physics exams when I was 17! The work I did on the "Scandinaviagate" critique was very simple, low-grade stuff, needing only basic maths, understanding of graphs, and a logical, critical mind - even then, it took me many hours to understand and investigate the issues properly. But many other issues being discussed would require a better understanding of the science and the maths involved, and I simply do not have the right expertise - nor the time to acquire it.

(3) Although I am indeed basically a climate change skeptic, I like to consider myself still open-minded on the issue (and many others). I value my independence and ability to criticize publicly things I consider wrong on both sides - to be, if necessary, skeptical of the skeptics, if you like! To be closely linked to one side of the argument - and your website is of course proudly anti-AGW, and a valuable resource - would perhaps compromise my ability to be taken seriously as an objective critic of AGW in other places where I post. It is, I'm afraid, an argument often used against Climate Change skeptics: "Oh, he's not worth listening to", they write, "he works for a well-known skeptic site, he's biased!". Nobody can say that of me at the moment, and I would prefer things to stay that way.

I'm very flattered that you thought of asking me, and sorry that I feel it's not right for me.

Osmund Bullock, London
To previous comment By Frank Lansner on 22nd February, 2010 at 23:27:34
1) You see a warming graph plantet over Scandinavia.
This will make you think that Scandinavia is warming up from 1940-2000 for far most readers. But its wrong. End of story really, but lets go on..

2) FEW people might want to check things out. IF they dont start out thinking that IPCC has placed the graphic wrongly (!) why look at the definition for NEU? No, quite a few would check Scandinavian temperatures first to be sure if somethings wrong. Just like karlen and others.

3) Then after checking out Scandinavian temperatures you have found no warming in Scandinavia, then you might check out the NEU. So you go to the appendix. Then you have some numbers "-10W/40Ex48N/75N" ok fine... where is that??

4) Then you have to find an atlas/map and compare the IPCC map with the atlas for the given coordinates. THEN you have the knowledge that the areas on the IPCC graphic placed on top of Scandinavia is far from Scandinavia.

(((5) But to know if this changed area is indeed the reason for the temperature mismatch you have to find temperatures for this new area somehow on the net etc.etc )))

You know, most people sea the warming over Scandinavia, and why should they not just think: Oh, also in Scandinavia there where warming? 99% of the readers are misled. This Scandinavia thing is obviously just a little issue. The problem in the climate debate is the huge number of details like this that has an overall trend in errors. If there where no such overall warming-IPCC-error-trend, then no one would ever mention a tiny detail like this. Can you follow me on this? So if you are not familar with 100´s of errors/corrections ending in warming message I understand 100% that you think this is ridiculous. K.R. Frank Lansner
"Scandinaviagate" By Unknown on 22nd February, 2010 at 15:20:37
You said: "Summa: IPCC does not show directly what "NEU" is by placing this information in a distant appendix. In reality, all readers that does not use hours to investigate this will get an impression of a warming Scandinavia and this is indeed misleading.

So without "doing anything wrong" IPCC misleads perhaps 99% of the readers?"

If you look WG1 raport in Chp. 9 Figure 9.12 on Page 695 where the "NEU" picture is shown, you will find in the figure explanations on the row four that further descriptions of the sub-continental areas will be find in the Supplementary Material in Appendix 9.C. So it will not takes hours, only minutes in order to find a closer explanations. for the sub-regions.
Article revised By Frank Lansner on 20th February, 2010 at 19:12:32
With respect to input from readers, article was updated.
We need an easy to use A - Z dictionary that is as correct as possible.

K.R. Frank Lansner
OB By Unknown on 20th February, 2010 at 03:33:38
Again, the results are insensitive to the exact latitudes and longitudes.
OK? So 48 or 50 degrees wont make any difference what so ever.

Now you want Lansner to perform running means for you. Can't you
see that there is no sound way he could end up with the IPCC-curve?
If you don't know the details I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Matlab and make some tests on your own.

Your criticism here is simply not justified.
@OB: We could use your sharp eye for details By Administrator on 19th February, 2010 at 18:03:25
Dear OB,
As you call yourself a skeptic, and you apparently have a sharp eye for details, it would be nice to get you on board. We are only Frank and I, and we both have work to do besides this what we do here in our spare time for our own money. So as mentioned elsewhere on this site, any help is welcome. So if you feel this is something for you, we would be happy to include you in the team as a reviewer.
Please inform.
Best regards,
Nicolai Skjoldby
48N... 50N By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 17:46:10
OB, the 5x5 grid does not allow 48N (!) Best fit is 50N.

Next, you seem to think some comments are mine which they are not :-) Hope we can modify the site so that all comments has names. But! Non the less, its correct, the method allowing IPCC to plant a graph on top of Scandinavia showing global warming is likely to be a cherry-picking issue in both geographic area and method of averaging. For instance, the NEU graph over Scandinavia collects data down to around Wienna, Paris etc.
I would say, Iceland were a more natural member of "North Europe" and stunningly, Iceland with its no-global-warming-trend is not included in the IPCC Northern Europe.

I will go further into this, but have some patience :-)
K.R. Frank Lansner

Postscript By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 16:48:13
...and even the yearly temp graph is STILL - unbelievably - not quite right - it is 48N, not 50N. Vienna and Munich, for example, are within the former, but not the latter.

I also think implying that the IPCC map was misleading because it was placed on top of Scandinavia is a feeble complaint. While I agree that the graphics could have been clearer, the original map on page 695 of the IPCC document Chapter 9 had just two subcontinental area graphs on it covering Europe - one over Scandinavia, and one over the Med, neither of them really in the "right" place - and the caption below specifically said where the definition of the areas covered could be found in the appendix!

We need REAL, scientifically-sound criticism of the IPCC, otherwise it will be no surprise if the world of power and politics continues to ignore the sceptical view!

OB (and the last post also)
But where are the decadal means? By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 16:20:31
But we still don't have your/Karlen's version of a graph of the ten-year means for each decade 1906-2005. This is the only thing that can fairly be compared with the IPCC NEU graph: of course the graph of individual years, smoothed/trended or not, is going to look different.

Now it MAY be that the IPCC's choice of a graph of those particualr decadal averages was a deliberate "cherry-pick" that showed the most impressive rise - I just don't know. But if so, it is THAT that must be proved, not a failed attempt to show something else.

I'm sorry if you think my way of dealing with this has been too harsh or exposing, but I absolutely believe in being as tough and honest and open in dealing with errors in the sceptic camp as I am in dealing with the warmist view. We MUST apply the same standards of scrupulous scientific accuracy and non-bias to ourselves as we expect of the IPCC, since it is this that we accuse them of failing to do - very robustly, publicly and often rudely, .

To be softer on ourselves than we are on them would be terrible hypocrisy, don't you think?
If you use Karlens average method.. By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 13:31:06
Then we do see a peak around 1935-40 similar to the 2005 peak, and it doesnt matter if you look at Scandinavia or "NEU" or any area in between, same result almost.
Similarity By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 09:50:26
Note the convincing similarity between the NORDKLIM data and HadCRU (green curve corresponding to IPCC NEU):

NORDKLIM and HadCRU are the same. IPCC NEU is not.
The story is solid!
For Frank Lansner By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 07:40:52
Dear Frank,

your story is correct as is shown by the HadCRU database for the correct latitudes and longitudes. This is still in complete disagreement with the IPCC hockey graph NEU.
NEU definition By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 01:20:17
The slight variation in definition of NEU does not significantly affect the data.
Next step By Unknown on 19th February, 2010 at 00:32:30
- Maybe next step would be to checkout hadcrut for the Scandinavian area and compare it with national data... :-) K.R. Frank Lansner
To OB By Unknown on 18th February, 2010 at 23:46:13
Hi OB!

You have many valid points, and even though the Hadcrut grid graph appears to show a marked fall in temperatures after 1940, its not so big a fall when calculating decade for decade as you say.
I have not checked the facts since the info concerning NEU has passed Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Karlen. And actually “facts” on this matter appears slightly different on the net from place to place. I simply gave a supplement to karlens Nordklim data from other sources. The article at WATTS stands as if correct this very day.

So what are the facts after checking out all? Hadcrut data is not really contradicting IPCC data when looking at the area -10W/40E x 50N/75N. So we are left with an IPCC graph placed over Scandinavia showing a warming trend not to be found in Scandinavia but mostly originates from more southern latitudes. It reminds me of how IPCC presents Arctic temperatures by including areas down to 64N and 60N… But it is not an easy provable case against IPCC here it seems.

Im certainly not used to see data from Willis/Watts/Karlen not to be solid. I think we will pull the story of, maybe rewrite it and post it later. I will talk with Nicolai what to do.

Your concern that the sceptics might look faulty in such matters is correct and therefore these things should indeed be corrected. But when your concern is that the sceptics might look faulty when errors like this occurs, please think about how you announce it to the world… You are VERY welcome to let us know of other errors in the A – Z.

K.R. Frank Lansner
Still wrong! By Unknown on 18th February, 2010 at 16:30:13
I'm sorry, but you are STILL getting this wrong: the 'NEU' area, as clearly stated in two correcting posts, is not 10W-45E / 50N-75N, but 10W-40E and 48N-75N. And since the link was given to you yesterday, I would have thought you'd by now have checked it for yourself in the relevant IPCC Supplementary Materials. It's in Appendix 9.c on page SM9-9. Here's the link again:

And even if your misdescription of the 'NEU' area had been right, by the way, it would still not have included Iceland as you say - 10W takes you to the western edge of IRELAND.

You are beginning to make climate change scepticism - which I share - look unscientific and a bit ridiculous! Why should anybody take sceptical criticism seriously when it cannot get even its basic numbers right?

The other problem with all this is that even with the correct NEU stations used, you would not be comparing like with like. The reason the IPCC graph looks so simple, almost schematic, next to the ones you compare it with (which show annual temps), is that it has only ten points on it - one each apparently at 1910, 1920, 1930 & so on up to 2000. But look at the notes to the Fig 9.12 the graph comes from (page 695 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC document that you actually give the link to, but apparently haven't bothered to read yourself, ), and also the notes to FAQ 9.2 Fig 1 (page 703). You will see that what the IPCC graph actually shows is average figures for each decade centered on those 1910, 1920 etc years: i.e 1906-15, 1916-25, 1926-35, 1936-45, 1946-55, 1956-65, 1966-75, 1976-85, 1986-95, 1996-2005. Please note also that figures start at 1906 and continue to 2005. Most of the Scandinavian temp graphs you show for comparison don't go beyond 2000. Until you or your "kind reader" produces a graph showing the same ten decadal means 1905-2005 for the NEU stations from HADCRUT3 (land & ocean) and/or CRUTEM3 (land only) - there is, indeed, confusion about which the IPCC have used for the subcontinental graphs, a valid point - and compares THAT with the IPCC's 'NEU' graph, the IPCC have no case to answer.

I am very disapointed in what I have found by investigating this more thoroughly. Most people have not the time and energy to dig for themselves, and would have accepted your piece and its conclusions at face value. I almost did myself, but was immediately struck by a worry about what 'NEU' represented.

I repeat that this sort of rather sloppy work does the Climate Change Sceptic view no favours at all. And that is something I deeply regret.

Osmund Bullock
Erik the Viking's google earth stations By Unknown on 18th February, 2010 at 13:02:23
Hi Erik,
I can see your stations in Google Earth. But what stations are they?
IPCC´s "NEU" 10W-45E / 50N-75N See update of article! By Frank Lansner on 18th February, 2010 at 01:03:35
Graph of temperatures based on for the "NEU" included in article. This doesnt explain the IPCC temperature trends any better it seems.

K.R. Frank Lansner
You might very well have a strong point. By Frank Lansner on 17th February, 2010 at 21:20:02
I will look into it and Update the article - Thankyou very much for digging this up!!
K.R. Frank Lansner
signature By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 19:37:45
Sorry, that last post was by me, Osmund Bullock, again.

Actually I see that someone else has already made the same point about the "NEU" definition.
"NEU" definition By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 19:33:59
I’ve now found what I think must be the original source of some of your story, an interesting Nov 2009 piece by Willis Eschenbach here:

I'm perplexed, though, that you say that you don't know what 'NEU' represents, that the IPCC don't say anywhere, and that therefore you can only assume that the IPCC graph is supposed to show only their version of the Scandinavian data alone. I guess you didn't check the appendices, because as the Wattsup piece makes clear, ‘NEU’ in fact IS defined in the IPCC report, apparently in Appendix 9c...."Europe, NEU, 10W to 40E, 48N to 75N, land". There are certainly still substantial arguments about whether the IPCC graph includes ocean temps or not, the email exchange given on WattsUp is confusing, to put it mildly. And it MAY well be that even a true graph of the wider 'NEU' subcontinental area should show a similar line to the Scandinavian one, and that the IPCC one has indeed been massaged. I just don't know.

But one thing is clear, the IPCC 'NEU' graph does NOT show the temps for Scandinavia alone: it is for a much, much larger area of Northern Europe, all the way from Ireland in the west to beyond Moscow in the east, and Munich & Vienna in the south to Bear Island in the north; it includes all the countries - Germany, Poland, N. France, W. Russia, etc - I mentioned in my original post. So, it’s hardly likely to look the same as one for Scandinavia alone. Playing Devil's Advocate here, there seems little point in comparing the two side-by-side, and doing so unhappily has proved nothing at all.

You see, my worry here is not that Karlen or Watts or you are wrong, but that by using a graph image comparison that can easily be dismissed as irrelevant by 'warmists', you are making the 'sceptic' argument look weaker than it actually is. And that is something I do not wish to see.
Karlén can't read a legend! By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 19:04:35
It is a pity that Karlén apparently is unable to read a figure legend. If he had been able to do this he would have read that a description of how the figure was produced can be found here.

In that document, he would have learned that the NEU graph covers 10W to 40E and 48N to 75N, an area much larger than Scandinavia, and that his entre approach was pointless.
IPCC, what is "NEU" ? Please? By Frank Lansner on 17th February, 2010 at 12:01:40
The need to know what countries is comprised by "NEU" is obvious, since IPCC does not specify this and thus enable the possibility to check their results.
No where in is "NEU" defined.
So, the Swedish professor Karlen did not start this Scandinavia issue without contacting CRU/IPCC to learn more. He did not start shouting "SCANDAL" without doing everything in his power to get information. The first step of the Swedish professor Karlén was to present this temperature issue between NEU and Scandinavian countries to CRU/IPCC, and he mailed them his finding from all of the Scandinavian area.

The answer was NOT that the Scandinavian areas/countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Faroe Islands, Svalbard was wrong - which is the best hint we have that we are indeed talking about the Scandinavian countries... No, the answer was, that the discrepancy was due to the "fact" that the IPCC chart also included the Ocean around Scandinavia. Karlen mailed them back, telling them that their own graphic was defined as land temperature... (And as my article shows, the Ocean around Scandinavia shows FALL in temperatures!!) So, Karlen replied this and more to IPCC, but hereafter he did not get any answers… Missing or misleading answers from IPCC does not help the idea that IPCC might be correct.

My conclusion was, that until IPCC can come forward and defend their vision of seemingly Scandinavian global warming temperatures, they are NOT in title to use them in public (!)
IPCC comes public with graph over Scandinavia showing a global warming nowhere to be found in Scandinavia, and can/will not explain further.
Therefore the only choice is to try and examine things as best we can our selves, sadly. We have a HUGE area of Scandinavia and surroundings with no global warming. If you include North Russian/Sibirain temperature stations, still this doesn’t really change the picture.

The Article here at Hidethedecline is a contribution to the Sacndinavian issue, that has been going on for years, see for example and search the net for "Karlen" and "Nordklim" you will find a lot. I might remember some details wrong, but the big picture I think we can agree on.

K.R. Frank Lansner
NEU - undefined By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 05:07:52
@ OB

See (updated):
for a comparison of possible definitions of NEU. (Since the IPCC does not define the area called NEU.)

Alan Cheetham (
Invalid comparison? By Unknown on 17th February, 2010 at 03:42:45
I'm confused. Surely the IPCC graph you are comparing against Scandinavian temps is for all of Northern Europe - that's why it's called "NEU"? It is positioned over Scandinavia, certainly, but the only other graph the IPCC shows for Europe on the map from which this graph comes, is placed over the Mediterranean and is called "SEM". I presume, therefore, that "SEM" is the temp graph for Southern Europe and the Med, and "NEU" is the graph for all of Northern Europe, including the British Isles, Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, European Russia, the Netherlands, Northern France, etc etc - not just Scandinavia. What is the point in comparing this with the graph for Scandinavia? Why would anyone expect them to be the same? And besides, the (very rough) IPCC graph DOES show a cooling in the relevant period, especially between c1950 & c1980, though unsurprisingly different to that in Scandinavia alone. As far as I know, nobody has ever pretended that there was no cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the years after 1940 - indeed it is a subject that has been much discussed, and very publicly.

I don't really understand what the problem is here? Can anyone enlighten me?

Osmund Bullock, London
Thankyou for input! By Frank Lansner on 16th February, 2010 at 11:12:00
Article was updated.
K.R. Frank Lansner
Northern Europe data show recurrent cycles By Unknown on 16th February, 2010 at 05:58:06
I have plotted the CRUTEM3 data for Northern Europe and compared it to the IPCC plot.
Also, a 70-year cycle is apparent in the data.
Small By Unknown on 16th February, 2010 at 04:55:51
About the Danish anomalies: Denmark is really a very small country. And the shape is long and slim. If you look at a map it's easy to see that his little land strip will be the "victim" of coincidence. A valid analysis is not really possible, - it would have to include some results from north Germany and the tip of Norway and Sweden. I know this sounds crazy but look at a map and you'll see. Lots of maps here:
Good stuff By Unknown on 16th February, 2010 at 02:27:05
Good analysis - please keep up the good work - have linked to you from,_what_is_going_on?.html By Unknown on 16th February, 2010 at 00:02:37
Thankyou very much indeed. It is highly appreciated, and your site indeed looks interesting.

K.R. Frank Lansner By Unknown on 15th February, 2010 at 23:10:02
Have added you to site blog list:
Further to the decline By Administrator on 15th February, 2010 at 16:19:03
I have added a figure to the article "Hokey stick graph" (the second figure in the article) where you can see the data before the deletion of data after 1960 (the red part). As you can see, the decline started before 1960.
Nicolai Skjoldby
The decline since 1940s By Administrator on 15th February, 2010 at 15:56:27
Reply regarding decline:
Thanks for your comment, Sir. I'm not sure you are right, though.
"The decline" refers to the decline in temperatures since the 1940s. Typically, when historic proxi-temperatures are illustrated to show "Mann"-made warming, these series are cut in 1960, so that they show only part of the temperature decline in the proxies. Further, the proxi temperatures are then manipulated in a way that they start to show a rising trend, in order to mingle in with the rising part of the hokey stick graph, see "hokey stick". This last part is based on measured temperatures. I'll write an article about "the decline".
Nicolai Skjoldby
the decline By Unknown on 15th February, 2010 at 13:53:52
A detail: "the decline" as in "hide the decline" is not the temperature decline 1940-75 (as in your uppermost Fig.) but an apparent temperature decline since about the 60s in that tree-rings were used as temperature proxies - the divergence problem.
Thank You Sir! - you may find this usefull By Unknown on 13th February, 2010 at 19:08:10
mILLrAT (13:04:40) :

I have converted the station list into a google earth kml file that is available for download at
I can sort the data into different groupings/latitude if anyone is interested.
note: the downloaded file is *.xml, just rename to *.kml

Erik The Viking

Add Comment
Powered by Website Baker