Alpine weather is not tricked

Posted: May 28, 2012 by tchannon in climate, Cycles, weather


Gosselin at NoTricksZone has an article on a new Austrian paper which examines long instrumentation records and reports there is no change in the incidence of severe weather in recent years, where some warmists have asserted to the contrary. (click image for link or here)

There is already comment about the look of cyclic behaviour in the data records, perhaps this fits with existing data, it ought to.

At the back of my mind is the whole thing might be a random walk, does no harm looking.

I wonder what and how much of the instrumentation data is available, plus what exactly does careful homogenisation mean?

h/t various sources.

Post by Tim Channon, co-moderator

  1. JuergenK says:

    Hi Tim,
    dataset here:

    In the following an explanation I figured out reading: “Reinhard Böhm”Wiener Mitteilungen Band 216: Hochwässer: Bemessung, Risikoanalyse und Vorhersage”

    Besides routinely updating the dataset, a part of the HISTALP temperature dataset had been thoroughly revised, mainly 32 temperature sequences from the earliest intrumental readings (before 1870).

    For example they found a systematical offset of +0.4 degrees celsius in the temperature readings compared to proxy data. The fact was extensively discussed and as the most probable cause they assumed an insufficent shielding of the thermometers then and corrected the data accordingly (downwards). This was done partly due to the fact that only summer temperatures had been affected.

    Take my explanation with a grain of salt, please. I’ve asked them for a correct explanation of homogenisation and another example.

  2. Tenuc says:

    From the abstract…

    “It shows that interannual variability changes show a clear centennial oscillating structure for all three climate elements in the region. For the time being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.”

    No surprise here, climate has always been known to oscillate over different periods of quasi-cycles, caused by the spatio-temporal chaos inherent in this highly complex, interlinked, dynamic system. Minor changes to size, type, and ‘spikiness’ of solar energy production are amplified by our climate system and produce the confusing and unpredictable changes we call weather. The when is just as important as the what, as the position of the Earth/Moon in their orbit will change the effect of a specific solar event. Better real-time observation of weather may one day help us predict long-term future weather/climate.

    At the moment, I don’t think we even know enough or have the necessary data to even start asking the right questions, let alone finding answers.

  3. tchannon says:

    Juergen, thank you for the data link, a rare co-operation. Gives me something new to cast an eye over. (anyone a spare bucket of time?)

    A particular worry for me is the poor state of data, including dodgy “adjustments” which generally do not get mentioned or properly justified. Some stories here.

  4. Brian H says:

    The dominoes continue to fall. Also have a peek at Willis’ derivation of sensitivity here:

    Observation sez 0.3K per doubling of CO2. Since he uses the 3.7 W/m^2 figure, I suspect even this result is high!

    It’s all comin’ t’part; oh woe is CAGW!

  5. JuergenK says:


    Dr. Ingeborg Auer from ZAMG has just pointed me to
    That site is fortunately in english.
    Documents there, for example:

    There are even software tools availiable:

  6. tchannon says:

    I expect to look at these datasets later. At the moment I have several major things in progress which takes most of my concentration.

    Looks like my understanding of homogenisation differs but I’d better not expand on fur ruffling stuff now.