Skip to content

Swiss Temperature Trends

October 30, 2018

By Paul Homewood


I have frequently referred to the step change in CET during the late 1980s and 90s.

While looking for something else, I came across this temperature record for Switzerland, which could almost be its twin.



Which brings us back to the question – what caused this sudden jump in temperatures?

  1. October 30, 2018 1:53 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. Doug Brodie permalink
    October 30, 2018 2:10 pm

    Roger Andrews at Energy Matters and Bob Tisdale at Climate Observations have argued that the sudden warming between the 1980s and the turn of the century was due to the ratcheting effect of a series of natural El Nino warming events. This seems to me as a layman to be a very plausible explanation. The speed of warming was very much faster that the UN IPCC’s postulated rate of a slow but steady 0.2ºC per decade. It can be easily seen in the UAH satellite record, see

    The Multivariate ENSO Index perhaps tells us all we need to know about “climate change” since 1950. It shows the historical preponderance of natural La Nina cooling events (blue) through the global cooling period from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, the preponderance of natural El Nino warming events (red) through the 1980s and 90s and the approximate balance over the so-called global warming “pause” since the turn of the century, see

    • Doug Brodie permalink
      October 30, 2018 4:13 pm

      I should have added a reference to your old post on AMO and PDO cycles, see

      It shows Roy Spenser’s reference to the “great climate shift” of the late 1970s and your own graph of superimposed AMO and PDO cycles showing how well they correlate with “climate change” since the 1900s, with the implication that global cooling is likely by the 2020s when they are both in their cold phase, possibly exacerbated by the sun being in a solar minimum.

  3. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 30, 2018 2:21 pm

    I see the step change in many graphs that profess to show a long term trend in many climate-related things. That suggests very strongly that “something” happened around 1980 to change the climate. What Id don’t think we should rule is that the climate exhibits, as other complex, non-linear chaotic systems do too, various equilibrium states, a bit like electrons in atoms, A jolt can shift the climate to a different state that is pseudo-stable until there is another jolt. The jolt can be a single event, or perhaps it is cumulative – like the economy, you keep doing stuff and the economy/climate just adjusts, until it runs out of adjusting room.

  4. A C Osborn permalink
    October 30, 2018 2:51 pm

    A change in cloud cover caused more Solar Energy to raise Sea Temperatures which fed heat in to the Atmosphere (and out to space) via the El Ninos.

  5. dearieme permalink
    October 30, 2018 3:00 pm

    If those data had come out of my lab my first reaction would have been to doubt my instruments. Only after a lot of checking and recalibrating would I have accepted that it was the system under observation that had changed.

    • dearieme permalink
      October 30, 2018 3:04 pm

      P.S. The suddenness of the rise implies to me that it’s perhaps not to do with CO2 emissions since they have (I assume) been climbing for more than a century.

      Unless the liberalisation of the economies of India and China led to a huge spurt of emissions then. Did it?

  6. Roy Hartwell permalink
    October 30, 2018 3:07 pm

    dearime completely agree with you ! Indeed, I would almost suspect from looking at the whole graph that someone had ‘inadvertently’ reversed the readings on the later data points as the would otherwise fit with the earlier downward trends.

  7. 2hmp permalink
    October 30, 2018 3:33 pm

    At least it doesn’t correlate to CO2 so something else be the cause. Could it be localised i.e Northern hemisphere with corresponding falls in the southern hemisphere .

  8. David permalink
    October 30, 2018 4:00 pm

    If you take the UAH Satellite data before the El Niño in the early 90’s, the data shows almost no change. If you look at the data after the La Niña had completely passed, about 2002, until today, you see no significant upward drift. But the post 2000 data is significantly higher than than the Pre El Niño data.

    Over that 8 yr period something happened to cause a step change. Every time I bring this up I get told to shut up because it can’t be real, because no one has a physical explanation that could cause it.

    I guess no observation is real until you have a theory to explain it. Isn’t that backwards.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 30, 2018 4:16 pm

      The ENSO is a record of Pacific sea surface temperatures. The global air temperatures are separate. But, the ENSO is a natural three part event…a warm El-Nino and a cool La-Nina “sandwiching” a neutral “El-Nada”. Put together over time there is no correlation between the ENSO and the increasing CO2 that is supposedly the cause?

    • Doug Brodie permalink
      October 30, 2018 4:28 pm

      Climate alarmists are always quick to stomp on any explanation of global warming that doesn’t conform to their official CO2 narrative. They typically dismiss the El Nino argument on the specious grounds that it is “cyclical” and therefore on balance neutral.

      The Roger Andrews post I referred to above is here:

      He cleverly analyses the temperature record by cutting out ENSO events to show that there is negligible trend without them, just a series of step changes. It looks very convincing to me.

  9. Immune to propaganda permalink
    October 30, 2018 4:57 pm

    Tampering by environMENTAlists

  10. October 30, 2018 6:00 pm

    That jump in temperatures is the basis of the ongoing claim that “the climate IS changing”, usually involving comparing the onset of Spring now with 30 years ago.

    South East Australia also shifted in the late 20th century:

  11. The Old Bloke permalink
    October 30, 2018 6:05 pm

    It is when Quicksilver (mercury) thermometers were phased out and digital took over.

    • October 30, 2018 6:47 pm

      The Meteorological Office did a comparative study of Liquid in Glass (LIG) and Electronic thermometers (sorry I do not have the reference to hand) finding that the LIG data was marginally higher than the electronc over a significant time period. This study justified the use of these instruments and The Meteorological Office regards electronic instruments as a reliable replacement, only needing calibration every 8 years :

      However they did reject the 3% of readings which were more than a degree different, justifying this for operational reasons (usually observer error). Such anomalous readings did not seem to be fully investigated and if still occurring would affect the temperature record and may represent the effect of the Transient Response Bias in electronic readings.

  12. John Bills permalink
    October 30, 2018 7:18 pm

    Look at the arctic oscilation (AO).

  13. Athelstan permalink
    October 30, 2018 7:40 pm

    “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. 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.”

    Phil Jones.

    and here:

    scroll to figure 4.

    pausebuster – gross fiddling of the data sets more like:

    • Geoff Sherrington permalink
      October 31, 2018 5:27 am

      The Phil Jones record is more complicated than that. There were a few changes from “we lost the data” to “we found the data”, repeat, repeat. There is some idea of this in emails quoted here. It is sad that the many issues that we found at that time 2010-2012, seem to have been safely tucked away without us knowing whether issues were corrected or let slide. The cause of this seems to be an attitude by some, that near enough is good enough fore government work, plus the end justifies the means. Geoff.

  14. Tony Budd permalink
    October 30, 2018 9:40 pm

    Increasingly widespread central-heating and heated vehicles in the winter, and air-conditioning in the summer? All that heat leaks out and has to go somewhere, like into the lower reaches of the atmosphere maybe. So urban areas are always warmer than rural ones. And the average temperatures are higher. What a surprise!

  15. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    October 31, 2018 5:38 am

    When you propose that anomalies like the 1975 great climate shift are caused by redistribution of oceanic heat (which might be partly or fully correct) it raises some questions at a deeper level, like –
    1. What allows the Indonesian hot spot SST to rise above normal, for later use in the El Nino mechanism? What keeps it hotter than average while El Ninos build?
    2. Is this heat also a redistribution within the ocean? If so, is it part of a zero sum process that means while it warms, is somewhere else getting cooler? Long shot, is it loval volcanic heat?
    3. Such warming or cooling needs energy to drive the redistribution. What is the source of this anomalous driving energy? Just more ocean current stuff, or something special?
    4. Can we detect the cells that get hotter and the cells that get colder as a consequence? Where are they? How long does it take to build up the exchange?

    Several of these concepts apply equally to the broader El Nino/La Nina mechanisms. Plus, as others have often noted, do the negative and positive excursions from this mechanism balance out to zero overall effect on Global temperatures? Or importantly, are we measuring in the wrong places to address this possible balance, like using mostly SST when we should be investigating quite deep ocean temperatures as well?

    I remain puzzled, sorry. Geoff.

  16. angryscotonfragglerock permalink
    October 31, 2018 8:37 am

    Clean air acts which cleared up the lower atmosphere thereby allowing more solar energy to reach the surface? Where the temperature effect was then measured with non-calibrated instruments in dodgy locations?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: