Skip to content

Germany’s New “Record Temperature” May Not Be Valid, Admits DWD

June 10, 2020

By Paul Homewood

h/t MrGrimNasty


Last month NoTricks queried an extremely dodgy claim about a supposed record temperature in Germany last year. (See here)

Finally under pressure the German Met Office, the DWD, has relented and agreed that there are serious doubts about the siting at Lingen:



There are similarities here with compromised claims about record temperatures in the UK.

In recent times, the Met Office has been eager to declare record temperatures at Faversham in Kent. The so-called record set in 2003 stood until it was replaced last year by an equally dodgy one in Cambridge.

Senior meteorologist, the late Philip Eden, proved pretty conclusively that the 2003 record was inadmissable because of siting concerns. But that did not stop the Met Office from declaring it as an official record anyway.

The DWD have fought tooth and nail to defend their record, and have only given way now after pressure from critics.

One of the most basic rules of meteorology is that measuring long term trends needs high quality sites, unaffected by urbanisation or other non-climatic factors. In the rush to “prove” global warming. it is a lesson which many national Met Offices appear to have forgotten.

  1. MrGrimNasty permalink
    June 10, 2020 10:51 pm

    And Faversham still stands for the August monthly record.

    The day Heathrow / Broadness / Brogdale all got mentioned – a roll call of dodgy!

    • June 11, 2020 10:38 am

      UK Hotspot
      If I am not mistaken this is the Faversham site. What do I see near the Stevenson Screen? An asphalt road, a brick and concrete tower, concrete posts and steal mesh fencing. I cannot see what is beyond what is shown in the foto but all of that material heats up especially the asphalt from which wafts of heat will be taken by any breeze

      • June 11, 2020 10:39 am

        Steal! Where did that “a” come from. Excuse my error…. I will now put on my glasses!

      • Leedschris permalink
        June 11, 2020 11:26 am

        I think the site at Faversham also looks too sheltered from those hedges. But my recollection is that the problem in 2003 was that the leylandii hedges (maybe on the left of your photo) were substantially higher – indeed they look from your photo that they have been cut in recent years. This would have made the site even more sheltered and prone to maximum temperature readings being excessive.

      • Tonyb permalink
        June 11, 2020 5:50 pm


        If you have it to hand could you put up the photo of the cambridge record site which needs to show the railway station, the new restaurant and the giant building adjacent stuffed full of solar panels?

        We were able to zoom out and see the buildings from rapidly expanding Cambridge encroaching on the botanical garden site

      • June 11, 2020 5:53 pm

        Leeds chris

        When leylandii is cut back too hard it can never grow again and goes brown as can be seen in the photo.

        Clearly they have been cut considerably and judging by the dead brown material it was done at least two years or more before the photo was taken

    • June 11, 2020 9:20 pm

      Thanks paul. My son lives in Cambridge and I had intended to visit him and see the site for myself but there seems to be some sort of health scare going on . Wish the media would tell us more about it….

  2. Leedschris permalink
    June 10, 2020 10:52 pm

    The worst example of an unrepresentative station was Gravesend Broadness. Fortunately this station has been closed but do you remember how in the 1990s and first decade of the 2000s this used regularly to feature in new high temperature records? Many of these were several degrees higher than nearby stations and never ‘looked right’. From google earth it looked as though this site was in a bowl formed by flood embankments. It’s bizarre this stations past temperatures still feature in the record books, yet the historic Camden Square station that operated in London and gave many records from the 1890s to the 1950s has been wiped from history because it was a sheltered site. Almost like the met office wants to erase high temps before the mid 20th century and artificially force higher records now.

    • Bertie permalink
      June 11, 2020 7:41 am

      Who’d have thunk it!

  3. Gamecock permalink
    June 11, 2020 1:13 am

    ‘Senior meteorologist, the late Philip Eden, proved pretty conclusively that the 2003 record was inadmissable because of siting concerns. But that did not stop the Met Office from declaring it as an official record anyway.’

    I raised heck over an alleged new record for the state of South Carolina in 2012. The site, on the campus of the University of South Carolina, was at best a CRN Class 3 station. The powers that be ratified it. It was obvious that it was a political, not meteorological, decision.

  4. June 11, 2020 6:40 am

    I don’t believe that national Met Offices have forgotten the need for high quality sites, unaffected by urbanisation or other non-climatic factors. They have deliberately ignored the need for high quality sites. In order to “prove” global warming they deliberately ignore high quality sites and use sites which give them the desired false data. All these Met Offices are corrupt.

    • June 11, 2020 10:43 am

      Which they do in common with the US Weather Service where they have been caught turning off ideal country locations and “replacing them” with extrapolated values from urban locations which they claim are “normalized” for UHI….. so WHY do the extrapolated values at those countryside locations now read consistently higher? Same in Australia where they have been caught tampering at both ends of the temperature scale. We is being had! But anyway WHY promote the recording at a single station? It is not representative of the wider area so why push it unless of course your intention is to deceive?

  5. Stonyground permalink
    June 11, 2020 8:24 am

    There would be no need for this kind of dishonest chicanery if the problem of runaway global warming was actually real. Temperature records would be tumbling with frightening regularity, and by significant amounts too, not by a few hundredths of a degree. The alarmists are destroying their own case when they cite a temperature record for 2018 that was only a fraction of a degree warmer than 1976, forty two years earlier.

  6. StephenP permalink
    June 11, 2020 8:45 am

    The powers that be hate to admit to failure or being wrong.
    Their view is ‘ never explain, never apologise ‘.

    As an aside, HH Lamb, who book Climate, History and the Modern World I am reading with great interest, says on page 259:
    This writer is inclined to the belief that, however careful the observing procedures and however carefully studied the adjustments applied afterwards to the observations, to declare a value for the world average or an area average to within some hundredths of a degree centigrade is an unattainable ideal.

    He then goes on to say that any adjustments to the data, even if considered necessary, introduce an arbitrary element into the results.

  7. Dave Ward permalink
    June 11, 2020 10:07 am

    “Unaffected by urbanisation”

    With all the development carried out over the past 100 years or more, I wonder just how few sites fall into this category…

    • LeedsChris permalink
      June 11, 2020 10:36 am

      I suspect very few. Even some of the Met Office main stations ‘out in the country’ are likely affected. A number are located at Airports, all of which have had massive expansion of buildings and runways. But even other sites can be affected. One long-term site that has a century of records on a ‘rural’ site is the Nottingham University Agriculture Department at Sutton Bonington (on the borders of Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. It’s away from large towns, and sited in a very small village, in principle it should be great, but like all colleges it is now a very large campus of buildings, whereas I suspect just after WWI it was probably one building and fields!! This must have made some difference…

  8. Neil Wilkinson permalink
    June 11, 2020 10:44 am

    Is there a list of high quality long term stations?? Probably a short list….

  9. June 11, 2020 10:55 am

    Isn’t it the norm in real statistics to discard outliers?

  10. MrGrimNasty permalink
    June 11, 2020 12:01 pm

    Didn’t hear much about the Oz cold flip from the BBC did we:-

    I read somewhere over 100 cold records have fallen as opposed to half a dozen heat records, but I lost the link – doh!

    Some linked stories.

    • Leedschris permalink
      June 11, 2020 3:14 pm

      On the subject of no publicity for record low temperatures ….So here’s a strange thing. The other ‘news’ that has been disappeared is the record all-time low temperature that was recorded at Summit Camp, Greenland, on 2 January this year (2020). Initial data suggested -66 was recorded at just past 11pm on 2 January. This would have beaten the all-time record for Summit Camp of -63.3C. I remember checking and Wikipedia was updated with this record within days at that time. It was acknowledged this was subject to checking. I have now downloaded (11th June 2020) the lates minute by minute temperature file for this year from (the web-site for Summit Station and NOAA). The data for 2nd January 2020 now shows the minimum as -64.9C at 2313hr, 2315hr and 2316hr. This is still the record low temperature ever recorded in Greenland. I think records at Summit Camp was established in 1989. Yet now Wikipedia doesn’t show this record at all and there is no publicity about this? Worth an investigation?

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        June 11, 2020 7:58 pm

        Yes I do remember we thought it was a record. They now seem to indicate a record of -66.1C in Jan 1954 North Face for Greenland – which wasn’t beaten, maybe they ‘found’ that after they thought the record was broken in 2020 and/or people just missed the entry at the time?

        The recent record low N.Hemi summer temperature in July 2017 at Summit -33C is correctly listed. So probably nothing sinister, turned out it just wasn’t so?

        Found this gold mine:

        Looks at Greenland temperature data up to 2000 – notable than none of the warmest years/seasons are in the latter years. Describes massive warming in places long before CO2 influence, and substantial cooling under supposed influence. Contrary to CO2 emissions/polar amplification theory.

        “…..distinct periods of warming from 1885–1935, cooling from 1940 to 1985, and warming from 1985 to 2001.”

    • C Lynch permalink
      June 14, 2020 5:37 pm

      Note the repeated reminders about how warm April was, for fear the simple folk might be distracted from the narrative by this.

  11. dearieme permalink
    June 11, 2020 12:40 pm

    “a lesson which many national Met Offices appear to have forgotten”: either that or they are lying bastards. My money’s on the second.

  12. Broadlands permalink
    June 11, 2020 1:40 pm

    The purpose of having new warm records (as opposed to new cold ones) is to validate man-made global warming? Yet, the cause of the previous warm record could not have been accomplished by the human addition of CO2. Many go back to the 1920s and 30s, if not older. And this is irrespective of urban heat island effects.

    ” basic rules of meteorology is that measuring long term trends needs high quality sites, unaffected by urbanisation or other non-climatic factors…”

  13. June 12, 2020 11:26 am

    Its called coercing. You start with a result and then, as proof, coerce all matters to regale your theory. The fact that anything that is beyond science currently can be attributed to the idea of AGW is a sure sign of pressure on proof in operation. The protagonists, in their search for the Eureka moment, cast their nets ever wider in an effort to prove what is self-evidently not directly to hand. When the political environment demands support for its policies there are obviously people in all manner of diaspora that are willing to kowtow to those demands. This behaviour is noticeable especially where TV channels have codes of conduct for their employees that cover an ever wider number of topics which they regard as needing policing, conformity.

    At base we have political correctness gone wild and imaginings or emotions seem to take over from fact, those things which can provide a proof of suppositions. Actions and reactions have gone out of kilter. Once it may have been true, the idea that science provides a world and the arts make that place worthwhile. Unfortunately, we find that the imagination of man (in the artistic sense) has taken over. In art anything can be an answer. In science we are normally content with one provable proposition.

  14. Ben Vorlich permalink
    June 13, 2020 9:56 am

    I haven’t seen anything in the MSM about the current situation in Greenland. The last few days have seen unprecedented gains when compared to 1981-2010 and I guess 2010-2020 as we’re always being told how quickly the Greenlan ice is melting.

    Have a look here

    • June 13, 2020 10:27 am

      Yes, while it’s been predominantly a cold / dry winter there, there’s been plenty of low pressure systems around this month, and forecast to continu all next week.

      That of course brings snow, so it may be the end of the month before melt starts

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: