Germany/Austria January 2017 Mean Temperature Dives …Over 2.7°C Below Normal

Germany’s DWD national weather service just issued the preliminary results for the country’s January 2017 mean temperature.

According the DWD’s approximately 2000 stations scattered across the country, January’s mean temperature came in 2.7°C colder than the 1981-2010 mean. Especially southern Germany was cold, as was its neighbor Austria, see below.

The lowest recorded temperature in Germany was measured in Reit im Winkl: -26.3°C. Most of the precipitation this past January, which was 27% below normal, fell as snow.

The DWD attributed the colder temperatures to a wintry weather pattern.

No warming

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has analyzed the German data for the Erfurt-Weimar station and has found that there has been no warming in January over the past 45 years (since 1973):

Despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, January temperature at the Erfurt-Weimar station has remained flat since 1973. Chart: Stefan Kämpfe, EIKE.

Josef Kowatsch also analyzed Germany’s January temperature trend and found that the month has in fact cooled almost 2°C over the past 25 years. I’ll see if I can chase down his chart.

EIKE also looked at the Central England January temperature record and found that there has only been a slight warming over the past 105 years!

In fact the warmest years in Central England were recorded in the early part of the 20th century.

Chart source: (EIKE)

Frigid Austria

Meanwhile Austria’s ZAMG national weather service reports that January 2017 in the country was “extraordinarily cold”, the second coldest in 30 years, with the preliminary mean coming in at 3.0°C below the long term 1981-2010 mean.

The chart shows the temperature deviation from the mean.

Temperature January 2017: deviation from the 1981-2010 mean. Computed using SPARTACUS data through 29 January 2017. Source: ZAMG

 

56 responses to “Germany/Austria January 2017 Mean Temperature Dives …Over 2.7°C Below Normal”

  1. yonason

    Clive Best has an interesting analysis of what “global temperature” means, or doesn’t.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7591

    “Long term changes in temperature anomalies occur mainly in northern continents in winter months. This is not because the earth as a whole is warming up but rather that meridional heat transport from the equator to the poles has increased and the largest effect on ‘anomalies occurs in winter.”

  2. Doug Proctor

    If you made these g4aphs for each month, would CO2 show as a season-sensitive gas? Maybe letter-sensitive – only months with the letter ‘e” in them?

    Perhaps CAGW can be avoided simply by renaming 5 months Jun, Saptimbur etc.

  3. yonason

    “…would CO2 show as a season-sensitive gas?…” – Doug Proctor

    Yes

    That graph is explained here.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/is-man-made-co2-different-1000-years-try-4-years/

  4. AndyG55

    “In fact the warmest years in Central England were recorded in the early part of the 20th century.”

    Same in Australia, just before 1910 where BOM starts their record (even though data exists before then)

    Also some very high temps in the late 1800s.

  5. John F. Hultquist

    -26.3°C.

    That will freeze and burst a few water pipes.
    That is close to our area’s lows, and not unusual.
    It has stayed cold a long time, and that does become a problem.

    Looks like about 2 weeks out, there will be a break toward warmer.
    [central Washington State, USA]

  6. yonason

    The Roller Coaster Is About To Go Down…

    “…2016 marked the third year in a row when global carbon dioxide emissions remained relatively flat,…”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130110947.htm

    But remember, it stopped warming BEFORE the CO2 stopped rising, so don’t let them trick you into thinking that the drop in CO2 is what’s causing the cooling we may be about to experience.

    1. mikewaite

      The rate of anthropogenic CO2 emission may be slowing , but the overall rate of CO2 concentration showed a noticeable increase during 2016:
      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
      Is this related to El Nino ? , sea surface warming and subsequent emission of CO2? If so we might expect a drop in the rate of CO2 increase to that shown for the previous 10 years.

      1. yonason

        “the overall rate of CO2 concentration showed a noticeable increase during 2016″ – mikewaite

        Eh.
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

        They measure the [CO2], not it’s rate of change.

        BUT if emissions were affecting the curve, then because they were flat for 3 years (2014, 2015, and 2016) , we should see that reflected in the total concentration. We don’t. And our adding less should certainly not make the curve go up. That should be a hint that, as Murry Salby has said, anthropogenic contribution to global CO2 is negligible. We are likely not the ones causing the rise.

    2. SebastianH

      You are confusing flat CO2 emissions with flat CO2 concentration. It’s like constant acceleration vs. increasing acceleration … you will still get faster and faster until acceleration completely stops.

      1. yonason

        @SebH

        See my comment to mikewaite.

        1. SebastianH

          And our adding less should certainly not make the curve go up.

          It should be blindingly obvious why this statement is false. If you add less to something you still add something. The curve continues to go up.

          Only if we’d stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere (or reduce to an output that can be absorbed by nature) the CO2 concentration would level out and maybe begin to decline. I write “maybe” because – as you skeptics preach – CO2 follows temperature rise and warming oceans could swith from being a sink to being a source … hopefully not until 800 years later.

          1. AndyG55

            Why does atmospheric CO₂ concentration matter?

            Because it is absolutely BENFICIAL TO ALL LIFE ON EARTH and it is currently on the low side of necessity.

            As you have amply shown, there is absolutely no proof that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere, and even if, against all science, it actually did, then it would be pushing us towards the warmer, more biosphere prolific, times of the MWP, RWP and Holocene Optimum.

            This MORONIC CO₂ demonization HAS TO STOP !!

          2. AndyG55

            Seb, you dolt.

            What they are trying to say is that our emissions have levelled off, but its had no effect on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO₂.

            Just like the huge industrial surge from China made very little discernable difference to the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 growth.

            The amount of CO₂ humans emit through power production and industry doesn’t seem to affect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO₂ very much at all.

            Do..

            you..

            under..

            stand ????

          3. yonason

            “It should be blindingly obvious why this statement is false.” SebH – Sub-sod

            You analytical skills make sod’s look impressive. AndyG55 has explained it well enough.

            Thanks, Andy, for saving me the trouble that I wouldn’t have taken anyway. At this point it’s clear that if he’s acting stupid, he deserves an academy award.

          4. SebastianH

            What they are trying to say is that our emissions have levelled off, but its had no effect on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO₂

            And how should this work? If we add 36 gigatons and it changes the ppm value by a certain amount, then adding 36 gigatons in the next year will most likey result in the same ppm increase.

            Regarding your constant “proof” tantrums: I presented you links to measurements of the effect and links to different satellites taking those measurements. Do you think they didn’t measure the effect? I also presented you with arguments against the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect and received no reply (as far as I can see). Instead you keep insisting that convection somehow changes that molecules with more than 2 atoms absorb and re-emit certain wavelengths.

            The amount of 36 gigatons of CO2 would equal an increase of the CO2 concentration by 4.64 ppm. We do affect the rate of increase.

          5. Thomas Robbins

            You forget the obvious, atmospheric c02 is used in large quantities by plant life, and as it cools sequestered back into the oceans. The big lie is that c02 has not been this high in akazillion years, it was as high after 1940’s warming, and almost as high two other times, man only addsat most 4% by burning FF, and the lie is nan made stays around 100 years…actually six years…. See “How and why the IPCC demonized c02 Dr. Tim Ball.. the volcano background c02 measurement’s areally utter bulls hit and so are cherry picked lowest value ice core samples.

          6. AndyG55

            Then why doesn’t it show up in the atmospheric rate of increase.?

            Still on proof that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Put up or STFU, moron !!

          7. AndyG55

            No CO₂ based warming in either of the satellite record, just El Nino steps, so they couldn’t have measured any warming due to CO₂.

            QED

            comprehend??? No, you are probably WAY to brain-washed by the AGW kool-aide.

          8. AndyG55

            Please seb, tell us that you are INTENTIONALLY acting a moron.

            Nobody could really be a THICK as you seem to be.

          9. AndyG55

            “I also presented you with arguments against the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect and received no reply”

            Amongst the constant other garbage you spew.. are you surprised ?

            Only so much time in the day to deal with GARBAGE. !

            Garbage like this little incoherent spew from you …

            “Instead you keep insisting that convection somehow changes that molecules with more than 2 atoms absorb and re-emit certain wavelengths”

            All one can say is .. WTF are you talking about. !!

            Seems you basically have NO IDEA what any of the physics is about, so you are just making up your own bizarre interpretation of stuff that is obviously well beyond your comprehension level.

          10. yonason

            @AndyG55

            Come on, Andy. Get real. Who ever heard of gravity making gasses heat up?
            https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150210.html

      2. DirkH

        ” It’s like constant acceleration vs. increasing acceleration … you will still get faster and faster until acceleration completely stops.”

        You sure you know the concepts of integrating and differentiating? And that one can do that with computers? And see how it looks like? on woodfortrees?

        1. yonason

          You don’t suppose he might be a victim of “Common Core?”

          1. SebastianH

            What are you suggesting DirkH?

            From the link yonason posted:

            Applying their method to the recent past, the researchers found that global carbon dioxide emissions have remained steady at around 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide for the third year in a row in 2016.

            36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

        2. SebastianH

          What are you suggesting DirkH?

          From the link yonason posted:

          Applying their method to the recent past, the researchers found that global carbon dioxide emissions have remained steady at around 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide for the third year in a row in 2016.

          36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

          1. AndyG55

            Come on seb, you mathematically illiterate twit.

            Show us where on the ESRL graph the Chinese industrial expansion starts…

            …and show us where the levelling-off of CO₂ emissions in the last few years has any effect.

            There isn’t any “change point”

            No acceleration due to the Chinese industrial expansion, no indication of the levelling off.

            As usual, you are spiting into the wind… and loving the spray back.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2

          2. SebastianH

            You have no clue at all or you are a (paid?) troll, I can’t decide yet. Your comments are ridiculous and a disgrace to any valid skepticism.

          3. AndyG55

            Oh mirror mirror.

            You are the paid troll, and a disgraceful one at that.

            If not, why are you here.. you obviously have no intent or ability to actually learn anything.

            Your comment gives AGW disciples a bad name, because they show the utter incompetence and scientific illiteracy of the below average AGW cultist in their true light.

            Why are you avoiding the issue yet again?

            No signal of human CO₂ usage in the ESRL data.. and you KNOW it.

            Beaten to a pulp, you are.

        3. SebastianH

          What are you suggesting DirkH?

          From the link yonason posted:

          Applying their method to the recent past, the researchers found that global carbon dioxide emissions have remained steady at around 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide for the third year in a row in 2016.

          36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

        4. SebastianH

          What are you suggesting DirkH?

          From the link yonason posted:

          Applying their method to the recent past, the researchers found that global carbon dioxide emissions have remained steady at around 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide for the third year in a row in 2016.

          36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

        5. SebastianH

          What are you suggesting DirkH?

          From the link yonason posted:

          Applying their method to the recent past, the researchers found that global carbon dioxide emissions have remained steady at around 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide for the third year in a row in 2016.

          36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

        6. SebastianH

          What are you suggesting DirkH?

          36 gigatons added per year still increases the CO2 concentration. Since 1 ppm equals around 7.76 gigatons of CO2 and concentration (at Mauna Loa) increased by 2.63 ppm in the last year, Earth’s CO2 “removal rate” seems to be around 16 gigatons per year. That is an oversimplification, but unless the CO2 output doesn’t decrease below whatever nature can sink the concentration will increase … especially if the output stays flat at the current level.

        7. SebastianH

          What are you trying to say?

          1. AndyG55

            Don’t worry about it Seb, its WAYYYYYY beyond your comprehension. !

          2. AndyG55

            I think we can safely assume that trying to explain even the most basic concept to seb, is a total and absolute waste of time. !!

          3. AndyG55

            Let me guess, seb

            You have virtually ZERO real science or maths education.

            You had to pull out of an Art/science (roflmao) degree because it was TOO MUCH for you?

            Social Science? Maybe? But would you eat your own cooking.!!!

          4. DirkH

            Well there is this occult idea that one can determine not only the FIRST differentiation but also the SECOND. And actually then you don’t have to mumble ominously but simply DEMONSTRATE whether some growth is ACCELERATING or NOT.

            But it is not for the uninitiated.

            It requires a through reading of the scriptures. Which have many wicked symbols.

          5. DirkH

            typo. A thorough reading.

          6. SebastianH

            DirkH,
            it’s called first (and so on) derivative.

            If CO2 in the air would be a direct function of the output of mankind than yes, you could see those changes from calculating the second derivative from the CO2 level. But as is repeatedly explained here, the ocean and nature is currently a CO2 sink. Evidence: we are emitting more CO2 than the increasing CO2 level indicates.

          7. AndyG55

            You are making suppositories for yourself again, seb.

            Show us where on the ESRL graph the levelling-off of human CO₂ emissions in the last few years has any effect.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2#sthash.3Yny0udA.dpuf

            You can do it.. or you can squirm and avoid again.

            Have you found any paper showing that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere, yet…

            …. or are we just putting it down to a religious hallucination.

    3. AndyG55

      US changing from coal to gas has dropped their emissions

      China has eased off at the moment because its over done the amount of electricity production they need… for now..

      I’m guessing that India will be the next surge in CO₂ emissions, then South Africa.thermal coal prices started to push higher at the end of last year.

      Metallurgical coal is climbing rapidly to previous high prices.

      http://www.afr.com/markets/commodities/metals/soaring-coking-coal-prices-are-now-approaching-boom-time-levels-20161107-gsk60c

      So there is no need to be concerned about a drop in human emissions of CO₂ and time in the foreseeable future.

      1. AndyG55

        “and” in last sentence should be “any” as in ..

        Coal ain’t going anywhere, ANY time soon.

        If we are influencing the [aCO₂], then we should be able to keep pushing that atmospheric CO₂ level up for the foreseeable future.

        That is ONLY GOOD NEWS.

  7. sod

    so we had a couple of cold days and luckily even a tiny layer of snow.

    January was nothing special, actually.

    http://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihenundtrends/zeitreihenundtrends.html?nn=495662

    1. DirkH

      sod still not accustomed to the fact he sits in the warmest area of Germany. The Freiburg area, low-lying Rhine valley.

      I’m in Munich and we had , as we are at 600 m above zero, half a meter of snow followed by bitter cold. two weeks of -15 deg C.

      Lapse rate. Learn about it. It really comes in handy. While you’re at it. Learn about the ideal gas law and Clausius-Clapeyron.

      1. SebastianH

        Sod is writing about the whole of Germany. Also Munich wasn’t experiencing -15C for two weeks. High temperature was always above -5C, low temperature only once reached -15C on January 7th. Low temperatures from the 20th to 23th were at around -12C (high temperatures around -2C for the same period).

        1. tom0mason

          A little forecast for you — will be colder by the end of this week, and February’s temperature in Europe will be lower than normal. (Normal weather forecaster’s error bands of +/-50% apply)

          But that’s weather for you, a bit of solar energy here, a change in ocean temperature there and oops — there goes the weather.
          Currently we have a Stratospheric warming event about to occur, so some more jet-stream wandering and highly variable weather, probably cooler period to occur for February.
          http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole30_nh.gif
          All driven by a small solar effect earlier in January.
          Yes the sun is the control of our weather, our climate.

          1. tom0mason

            Ooops –

            Not
            “A little forecast for you — will be colder by the end of this week, ”
            Should be —
            A little forecast for you — will be colder by the end of NEXT week,

          2. SebastianH

            Climate is not weather, especially not local weather.

          3. DirkH

            “Climate is not weather, especially not local weather.”

            As climate is defined as the 30 year average of weather, it is simply a lowpassed component of the weather signal. There is no magical separation. Your climate signal is a man-made variant of weather reality, obtained by dampening high frequencies.

            Special note to the mathematically challenged: A chaotic system shifts energy from the high to the low frequencies and vice versa, as it is by necessity nonlinear and has feedback. The Chaos is necessarily immanent in all frequency ranges (otherwise we would have a superposition of a non-chaotic and a chaotic system).

  8. AndyG55

    So long as the actually atmospheric CO₂ concentration keeps climbing, all is good.

    https://s19.postimg.org/k3rksnur7/Towards1000.png

  9. AndyG55

    OT, Awesome video of mother nature in action

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzwuTBx93uA&feature=youtu.be

    1. yonason

      Shouldn’t have had that last Rum Punch.

  10. AndyG55
    1. AndyG55

      And they plan to push the COAL part up further.

      Probably push the unreliables down below 1% over time.

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/image_thumb3.png?w=1200&h=772

  11. sod

    Global January was pretty warm:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2017-0-30-deg-c/

    about the total opposite of what Spencer had in mind some months ago, when he was betting on a massive drop in temperatures to keep 2016 from beating records.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-3.gif

    1. AndyG55

      0.3ºC anomaly.. and you think its pretty warm.

      DOH !!!!!!!

      I bet you couldn’t even sense such a slight change.

      And I bet the temperature differences in different parts of your dark, dank, granny’s basement, where you reside, are FAR greater than that.