Data Note:

Heating and Cooling Degree Days

Summary

This Data Note summarizes the methodologies used by the World Resources Institute for
calculating annual heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) for 171 countries.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the calculations. The heating and cooling degree day data
shown in Table 2 is included in the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), as a Natural Factor
Indicator.1 In CAIT, two HDD and two CDD figures are provided for each country. The first is a
population weighed national average (i.e., per capita) and the second is a “total” for the country,
which is the per capita average multiplied by the total population. These two figures serve as
proxies for the per capita and total heating cooling needs of a country, respectively.

1. Concept of Heating and Cooling Degree Days

A “degree day” is a measure of the average temperature’s departure from a human comfort level
of 18 °C (65 °F). The concept of degree days is used primarily to evaluate energy demand for
heating and cooling services. In the United States, for example, degree day indicators are widely
used in weather derivatives, energy trading, and weather risk management.

Using a base temperature of 18 °C, heating degree days (HDDs) are defined as 18 – T, where T
is the average temperature of a given day. Thus, a day with an average temperature of 10 °C will
have 8 degree heating days. Cooling degree days (CDDs) are calculated in a similar fashion:
cooling degree days are defined as T – 18, where T is the average temperature. Accordingly, a
day with an average temperature of 25 °C will have 7 degree cooling days. For both heating and
cooling degree days, average temperature of a particular day is calculated by adding the daily
high and low temperatures and dividing by two. Thus, if the daily high temperature is 20° and
the daily low temperature is 10°, then the average temperature is 15 (resulting in 3 heating
degree days).

Heating and cooling degree days are calculated in a cumulative fashion. For example, heating
degree days for a weather station with daily average temperatures during a five-day period of 14,
13, 15, 10, and 9 are 1, 2, 0, 5, and 6. This sums to a total of 14 heating degree days over the
period. To calculate the degree heating days of an entire year, the degree day calculations of all
365 days are simply summed. Naturally, heating degree days accumulate primarily during the
winter, whereas cooling degree days tend to accrue during the warmer summer months.

Degree day calculations can also be made for regions. The National Climatic Data Center in the
United States, for example, calculates heating degree days for each state and geographic region
(e.g., Northeastern U.S.) as well as a U.S. national average. This is done by applying population

1
See http://cait.wri.org

1
weightings to the degree day calculation generated from weather stations around the country.
Thus, the degree day calculations from large metropolitan areas will be accorded more weight
than calculations from sparsely populated areas.

2. Methodology

WRI has made HDD and CDD estimates for 171 countries. The methodology for calculating
degree days for each country involves two steps: (1) calculation of heating and cooling degree
days for all possible locations and (2) weighing degree day data by population, within each
country, to obtain a national average. Population data—appropriately matched with the degree
day data—enables population-weighted national averages to be constructed. These figures
represent the HDD and CDD faced by an “average” person in the particular country.

2.1. Calculating Degree Days

Due to limitations in the available data, degree days were calculated using two different methods.
The first method uses daily temperature averages to calculate degree days for a given location
while the second method used the Erbs et al. (1983) method for calculating degree day data from
monthly average temperatures. Table 2 notes whether Method 1 or 2 was used for each country.
Each method is described in detail below.

i. Method 1

Method 1, used to calculate heating and cooling degree days for 115 countries, used degree day
and degree hour data compiled by Crawley (1994) from the Global Daily Summary (GDS)
version 1.0 and the International Station Meteorological Climate Summary (ISMCS) version 4.0
data. GDS contains daily summaries of temperature and precipitation for the period October,
1977 to December, 1991 for 10,277 locations while ISMCS contains detailed tables of many
weather variables for the period of record (months in some locations and up to 70 years in the
U.S.) for more than 1,000 locations. The compiled degree day data contains data for nearly 4500
international locations calculated from climate normals.

ii. Method 2

Method 2 was used for 56 countries that were not included in the dataset compiled by Crawley.
This method calculated degree days based on monthly average temperatures. Monthly average
temperatures were obtained from the World Climate website2 which contains monthly average
temperatures drawn from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) versions 1.0 and
2.0 (beta) (See References). GHCN is a comprehensive global surface baseline climate dataset
comprised of surface station observations of temperature, precipitation, and pressure. GHCN
contains data from over 6,000 weather stations. All GHCN data are on a monthly basis and
represent climate normals for the period of record. The earliest station data is from 1697 while
the most recent are from 1990. A typical period of record for a given weather station is between
50 and 20 years.

2
http://www.worldclimate.com

2
To calculate degree days from monthly average temperatures, WRI followed the method
developed by Erbs et al. (1983), described in Al-Homoud (1998). The Erbs method attempts to
correct for under and/or over-representation of heating and cooling degree days when using a
monthly average temperature. Typically when using monthly average temperatures, degree days
are calculated as Dm(18-Ta) for heating degree days and Dm(Ta-18) for cooling degree days,
where Dm is the number of days in the month and Ta is the average monthly temperature.
Because this method does not account for temperature variability within the month, it is likely to
over or under estimate heating and cooling needs. In order to compensate for this, the Erbs
method calculates the standard deviation of the monthly average temperature around the yearly
average ( y) and the daily average around the monthly average ( m). In turn, the standard
deviation of the daily average temperatures around the monthly average is used to estimate daily
average temperature variability within the month. Degree days for the month can then be
calculated as:
1.5
DDm = m(Dm) [h/2 + ln(e-ah + eah)/2a]

where:
h = (Tbase-Ta)/[ m (Dm)1/2] (for heating degree days calculations),
h = (Ta-Tbase)/[ m (Dm)1/2] (for cooling degree days calculations),
a= 1.698(Dm)1/2,
m= 1.45 – 0.29Ta + 0.664 y.

Finally, the degree days for each month were summed to obtain a yearly total.

Both Method 1 and Method 2 yielded annual degree day data for several thousand international
locations. In order to aggregate these data by country we used the weighting method described
below.

2.2. Weighting the Degree Day Data

The average heating and cooling needs of an entire country can be determined by applying
population weightings to the degree day calculations generated for locations within a country.
Using population to weight the degree day data ensures that large metropolitan areas will be
accorded more weight than calculations from sparsely populated areas so that the national
average reflects the heating and cooling needs faced by the “average” citizen of that country
(with some facing more, and others facing less).

Population figures used to construct the weightings were obtained from a population dataset
compiled by Helders (2003). The population data were compiled from several national statistical
agencies and international organizations and represent 2003 population estimates for cities,
towns, administrative units, and countries. Estimates are based on the best available data.

In most cases, we chose domestic states or provincial units as the basis upon which to construct
the weightings. In some cases, where no state or provincial population data was available, we
used major metropolitan areas to construct the weightings.

3
First, HDD and CDD data (determined via either Method 1 or 2) for each location were matched
to the corresponding city/town population figures where possible. The HDD and CDD data with
no correlating population data were disregarded. This data often corresponded to weather
stations in sparsely populated areas.

Next, the degree day data and associated city/town populations were grouped according to
“administrative unit” (i.e., state, province or territory).3 The HDD and CDD data were then
weighed according to the administrative unit population and summed in order to obtain the
average HDD and CDD for the country. Where degree day data are available for only one
location within the administrative unit, that location served as a proxy for the entire
administrative unit. Where degree day data for multiple locations are available within a single
administrative unit, the degree day data for the multiple locations are weighed according to their
share of the administrative unit population.

For example, the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh has degree day data for four locations, the
cities of Gwalior, Jabalpur, Bhopal and Indore. The average state heating and cooling degree
days were determined by weighting the degree day data of each location according to its share of
the represented state population and then summing the weighted degree days to obtain the state
total. Alternately, the small Indian state of Tripura has degree day data from only one location,
the capital city of Agartala. Accordingly, the degree day data for Agartala is used as a proxy for
the average degree days for the entire state. Once degree day calculations were made for each
Indian state, the state degree day data were then weighted according to their share of the country
population that was covered. The share of country population covered was calculated by
summing the populations of the administrative units with at least one data point and dividing by
the total country population. Table 2 shows how many locations were used to obtain the average
heating and cooling degree days for the country as well as the share of the country population
that was included in the weighting.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the top 10 countries for Table 1. Top 10 HDDs and CDDs by Country
heating and cooling degree days. When Country HDD Country CDD
1. Mongolia 6681 1. Mali 4064
interpreting the results, it is important to keep 2. Russian Federation 5235 2. Niger 4033
in mind the affect of the population 3. Finland 5212 3. Burkina Faso 3903
weightings. While other countries not listed 4. Iceland 5031 4. Yemen 3868
5. Estonia 4605 5. Kiribati 3798
in Table 1 may have similar (or more 6. Kazakhstan 4575 6. Oman 3657
extreme) climates, it may be that major 7. Norway 4535 7. Panama 3638
population centers in those countries are 8. Canada 4493 8. Gambia 3603
9. Sweden 4375 9. Nauru 3599
located in more temperate areas, thus 10. Belarus 4299 10. Thailand 3567
resulting in fewer HDD or CDD. Table 2
shows the comprehensive results, listing the heating and cooling degree days for each country as
well as the number of locations used in the calculation, the percent of the country population
covered by the weighting, and the method used to calculate the degree days. “NA” means that no
data was available for that particular country.

3
Examples of “administrative units” include Ontario (Canada), California (U.S.), Uttar Pradesh (India), Nizhnij
Novgorod (Russia), Henan (China), and Wales (United Kingdom), Bali (Indonesia).

4
Table 2. Heating and Cooling Degree Day National Weighted Average
Number of Percent of Method 1 or
Country Heating DDs Cooling DDs Locations Country Covered Method 2
Afghanistan 2209 1049 3 23.7 2
Albania 1724 683 4 32.4 1
Algeria 1177 1154 23 48.6 1
Angola 42 1510 4 42.0 2
Antigua & Barbuda NA NA NA NA NA
Argentina 1059 889 36 99.7 1
Armenia 3282 532 3 49.5 1
Australia 828 839 34 100 1
Austria 3446 173 18 100 1
Azerbaijan 2056 720 2 13.2 1
Bahamas 22 2521 7 93.1 1
Bahrain NA NA NA NA NA
Bangladesh 3 2820 14 35.4 2
Barbados 0 3270 1 37.4 1
Belarus 4299 88 17 100 1
Belgium 3009 102 12 77.4 1
Belize 0 2916 2 38.6 2
Benin 1 3532 6 52.5 1
Bhutan NA NA NA NA NA
Bolivia 2399 400 3 50.4 1
Bosnia & Herzegovina 2949 261 5 100 1
Botswana 360 1637 4 25.5 1
Brazil 118 2015 43 89.8 1
Brunei 0 3516 1 66.2 1
Bulgaria 2624 430 11 56.2 1
Burkina Faso 1 3903 7 29.6 1
Burundi 0 1953 1 11.7 2
Cambodia 0 3323 5 34.2 2
Cameroon 0 2682 10 67.5 2
Canada 4493 171 121 100 1
Cape Verde 0 2299 3 73.4 2
Central African Republic 0 2560 11 65.6 2
Chad 0 3566 12 82.9 2
Chile 1613 225 12 84.0 1
China 2158 1046 258 97.5 1
Colombia 677 2119 14 59.5 2
Comoros 0 2715 2 95.1 2
Congo 0 2462 9 60.4 2
Congo, Dem. Republic 6 1842 20 93.3 2
Cook Islands 0 2566 6 84 1
Costa Rica 1 1487 4 72.4 2
Côte d'
Ivoire 0 2937 16 79.0 2
Croatia 2289 418 8 49.9 1
Cuba 8 2760 4 35.2 1

5
Table 2. Heating and Cooling Degree Day National Weighted Average
Number of Percent of Method 1 or
Country Heating DDs Cooling DDs Locations Country Covered Method 2
Cyprus 710 1091 3 76 1
Czech Republic 3569 108 9 67.4 1
Denmark 3621 40 10 70 1
Djibouti NA NA NA NA NA
Dominica NA NA NA NA NA
Dominican Republic 0 3053 1 31.3 1
Ecuador 751 1343 17 78.9 2
Egypt 400 1836 6 19.9 1
El Salvador 0 2215 2 39.0 2
Equatorial Guinea NA NA NA NA NA
Eritrea 557 1230 2 25.6 2
Estonia 4605 38 4 61.4 1
Ethiopia 190 536 9 73.4 2
Fiji 0 2595 4 82 1
Finland 5212 48 21 85.1 1
France 2478 241 69 68.5 1
Gabon 0 2669 10 100 2
Gambia 0 3603 2 34.1 2
Georgia 2216 589 3 38.9 1
Germany 3252 122 85 100 1
Ghana 0 2949 5 63.1 2
Greece 1269 923 13 58.3 1
Grenada NA NA NA NA NA
Guatemala 174 839 4 37.5 2
Guinea 0 2674 8 42.4 2
Guinea-Bissau 0 3098 2 24.4 2
Guyana 0 3363 3 63.2 1
Haiti 0 3093 1 35.4 1
Honduras 2 2289 8 56.6 2
Hungary 3057 256 20 80.9 1
Iceland 5031 40 7 94.3 1
India 80 3120 51 93.8 1
Indonesia 0 3545 19 65.8 1
Iran 1813 1037 10 58.2 2
Iraq 744 2444 10 69.3 2
Ireland 2977 19 8 52.5 1
Israel 756 1244 4 44.4 1
Italy 1838 600 38 99.9 1
Jamaica 0 3525 2 28.5 1
Japan 1901 896 84 100 1
Jordan 1173 1122 4 59.4 1
Kazakhstan 4575 481 36 98.1 1
Kenya 91 1265 13 75.3 1
Kiribati 0 3798 1 38.2 1
Korea (North) 3389 493 10 82.6 1

6
Table 2. Heating and Cooling Degree Day National Weighted Average
Number of Percent of Method 1 or
Country Heating DDs Cooling DDs Locations Country Covered Method 2
Korea (South) 2480 744 21 96.0 1
Kuwait 322 3166 5 59.9 2
Kyrgyzstan 3161 682 3 45.4 1
Laos 0 2833 4 42.5 2
Latvia 4237 58 4 41.3 1
Lebanon 1117 812 3 23.5 2
Lesotho NA NA NA NA NA
Liberia 0 2851 1 3.6 2
Libya 606 1670 9 46.9 1
Lithuania 4218 68 4 66.2 1
Luxembourg 3467 99 1 28.4 1
Macedonia, FYR 2647 430 3 34.9 1
Madagascar 200 1607 8 100 1
Malawi 135 992 5 16.1 2
Malaysia 0 3411 12 54.7 1
Maldives NA NA NA NA NA
Mali 2 4064 5 49.5 1
Malta 725 1043 1 29.8 1
Mauritania 4 3525 4 39.2 1
Mauritius 8 2148 1 9.1 1
Mexico 364 1560 45 86.5 1
Moldova 3317 325 3 33.9 1
Mongolia 6681 82 16 80.9 1
Morocco 772 910 16 81.2 1
Mozambique 21 2085 1 6.1 1
Myanmar 0 3180 9 60.1 2
Namibia 450 1242 7 44.8 1
Nauru 0 3599 1 9.4 2
Nepal 762 970 1 11.1 2
Netherlands 3035 68 11 72.4 1
New Zealand 1609 165 12 74.1 1
Nicaragua 0 3250 6 50.4 2
Niger 3 4033 11 100 1
Nigeria 0 3111 12 40.4 2
Niue 0 2463 1 100 2
Norway 4535 43 8 38.7 1
Oman 0 3657 4 58.4 2
Pakistan 831 2810 2 27.1 1
Palau 0 3498 2 68.1 2
Panama 0 3638 1 48.8 1
Papua New Guinea 1 3286 1 7.0 1
Paraguay 239 2197 4 17.0 1
Peru 285 1174 13 67.0 1
Philippines 2 3508 14 87.0 1
Poland 3719 100 26 97.2 1

7
Table 2. Heating and Cooling Degree Day National Weighted Average
Number of Percent of Method 1 or
Country Heating DDs Cooling DDs Locations Country Covered Method 2
Portugal 1367 345 11 97.2 1
Qatar 29 3374 1 50.6 2
Romania 3157 290 51 89.9 1
Russian Federation 5235 197 265 84.4 1
Rwanda NA NA NA NA NA
Saint Kitts & Nevis 1 3541 1 5.7 1
Saint Lucia NA NA NA NA NA
Saint Vincent & Grenadines NA NA NA NA NA
Samoa 0 3280 1 39.5 1
Sao Tome & Principe 0 2675 2 42.8 2
Saudi Arabia 311 3136 10 56.9 1
Senegal 1 3379 9 71.6 1
Serbia & Montenegro 2813 334 18 100 1
Seychelles 3 3460 1 3.9 1
Sierra Leone 0 3093 6 100 2
Singapore 0 3261 1 100 2
Slovakia 3498 158 7 78.5 1
Slovenia 3290 189 2 40.7 1
Solomon Islands 0 3093 1 24.8 2
South Africa 630 824 40 100 1
Spain 1431 702 51 91.1 1
Sri Lanka 87 2943 10 43.7 2
Sudan 0 3486 20 73.9 2
Suriname 0 3252 5 68.1 2
Swaziland NA NA NA NA NA
Sweden 4375 45 24 87.9 1
Switzerland 3419 137 11 44.9 1
Syria 1388 1187 6 55.3 1
Taiwan 231 2132 18 82.1 1
Tajikistan 2054 1203 8 78.2 1
Tanzania 2 2922 1 7.7 1
Thailand 1 3567 42 63.2 1
Togo 1 3318 2 64.7 1
Tonga 0 2190 5 94.9 2
Trinidad & Tobago 0 3316 2 8.2 1
Tunisia 892 1184 15 62.9 1
Turkey 2048 641 32 64.6 1
Turkmenistan 2218 1235 8 64.3 1
Uganda 0 1458 3 48.6 2
Ukraine 3752 224 38 86.6 1
United Arab Emirates 4 3294 4 90.3 2
United Kingdom 2810 66 21 92.2 1
United States of America 2159 882 384 99.7 1
Uruguay 1019 732 13 70.6 1
Uzbekistan 2251 1144 13 78.1 1

8
 Table 2. Heating and Cooling Degree Day National Weighted Average
Number of Percent of Method 1 or
Country Heating DDs Cooling DDs Locations Country Covered Method 2
Vanuatu 1 2545 3 38.2 1
Venezuela 1 2381 12 7.3 2
Vietnam 81 3016 4 56.4 1
Yemen 0 3868 1 3.5 2
Zambia 105 1087 11 100 2
Zimbabwe 349 1010 9 64.7 1
Note: This table contains a complete listing of countries included in CAIT.

4. Limitations and Discussion

There are several limitations of the methods and results described above. First, there are inherent
limits to the usefulness of heating and cooling degree day indicators. It is not the case that a
degree day calculation will capture each and every need for heating or cooling services, in part
due to the possibility of extreme high and low temperatures (which can be obscured by daily
averages). In addition, other climatic factors, such as humidity and wind, will also influence the
demand for heating and cooling services. Overall, degree days should be understood as a
reasonable approximation—not an exact measure—of the heating and cooling needs (all other
factors held equal) of a particular city, region, or country.

Second, there are limitations with respect to the data coverage. Overall, data coverage was very
good for most industrialized countries and many other large countries, such as India, China,
Brazil, and Russia. However, in some cases degree day data could not be found for significant
population centers. In other cases, the match between population data and temperature data was
less than optimal. The extent to which data coverage problems influence the results will depend
on the particular characteristics of the country.

For example, the island nation of Nauru arrives at its national degree day average using data
from only one location. The percentage of the country covered by this weighting is only 9.4
percent. However, because the total area of the country is only 21.2 sq km, it is likely that
climactic conditions across the country show very little variation and thus the national degree
day estimates are an accurate representation of Nauru’s conditions. However, the national degree
day average for Burundi, where climatic conditions might vary with altitude, may not give an
entirely accurate picture. The degree day average of Burundi was determined using data from
only one location and covers only 11 percent of the total country population. If there are
population centers in Burundi that face significantly different climatic conditions than the 11
percent covered, this will influence the results significantly. Table 2 shows the number of degree
day-location pairings used to obtain the results for each country. Together with the percentage of
the country covered, as well as a general understanding of how climate varies within the country,
it is possible to qualitatively assess the relative completeness of the data.

A third limitation of our results is the use of two, rather than a single method, which could
adversely affect comparability. To determine the extent of this limitation, we used both
methods—one using daily average temperatures and the other using monthly average
temperatures—for a few countries (where data permitted). The two methods yield slightly

9
different results. Table 3 shows heating and cooling degree estimates for selected countries using
both Method 1 and Method 2 in order to offer a side-by-side comparison of the how results vary
based on the method used. The table shows the differences in results in both percentage terms
and in degree days. To the extent possible the same locations were used to obtain degree days for
each country.

Table 3. Comparison of Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Selected Countries Using
Method 1 and Method 2.
Heating Degree Days Cooling Degree Days
Method 1 Method 2 Difference (%)* Method 1 Method 2 Difference (%)*
Albania 1724 1780 56 (3.5%) 683 515 -168 (-24.6%)
Armenia 3282 3474 192 (5.9%) 532 432 -100 (-18.8%)
Azerbaijan 2056 2153 97 (4.7%) 720 674 -46 (-6.4%)
Chile 1613 1759 146 (9.1%) 225 86 -139 (-61.8%)
Kenya 91 105 14 (15.4%) 1265 1142 -123 (-9.7%)
Vietnam 81 34 -47 (-58%) 3016 2683 -333 (-11%)
Zimbabwe 349 371 22 (6.3%) 1010 744 -266 (-26.3%)
*Difference is determined by subtracting Method 2 results from Method 1 results. The difference is then divided by
Method 1 results to obtain the percent difference.

Heating degree day estimates using Method 2—with one exception (Vietnam)—are higher than
estimates performed using Method 1. Cooling degree day estimates using Method 2 are
consistently lower than Method 1. The margins of difference, in most cases, seem to be relatively
small, though not insignificant. (Obviously, percentage differences become less meaningless as
HDDs and CDDs approach zero.4) The differences for Chile (CDD), Zimbabwe (CDD), and
Vietnam (HDD) seem particularly significant.

In addition to differences in the methodologies, the differing results might also be partially
explained by the different underlying data sources used in each method, which may not have
used the same period of record to depict “normal” climatic conditions (e.g., one source may have
used 1970 to 1990 for a given location, while another source may have used 1900 to 1990 for
that location). In this sense, actual climate change may influence the results.

Finally, caution should be exercised when analyzing degree day results in relation to energy use
or greenhouse gas emissions. An understanding of other structural factors, energy intensities, and
fuels is needed to adequately assess the energy or greenhouse gas implications of heating and
cooling degree day indicators presented here. For example, average home sizes, the quality and
prevalence of insulation, building design, and other structural factors vary widely from country
to country. Energy intensities also differ widely with respect to providing heating and cooling
services. Finally, the fuel used—ranging from coal, oil, diesel, gas, wood, hydro and other
renewables—will significantly influence the greenhouse gas emission consequences for a given
heating or cooling degree day value.

4
For example, if Method 1 registered “1” HDD and Method 2 registered “2” HDDs. The results would be
remarkably close, but Method 2 would be “100 percent” higher.

10
References

Al-Homoud, M. S. 1998. Variable-Base Heating and Cooling Degree-Day Data for 24 Saudi
Arabian Cities. ASHRAE Transactions, 104(2):320-330.

Crawley, Drury B. 1994. Development of Degree Day and Degree Hour Data for International
Locations, December 1994. D.B. Crawley Consulting, Washington, D.C.

Erbs, D.G., S.A. Klein, and W.A. Bechman. 1983. Estimation of degree-days and ambient
temperature bin data from monthly-average temperatures. ASHARE Journal, 25(6):60-65.

GHCN Version 1:
Vose, R. S., Richard L. Schmoyer, Peter M. Steurer, Thomas C. Peterson, Richard Heim,
Thomas R. Karl, and J. Eischeid, 1992: The Global Historical Climatology Network:
long-term monthly temperature, precipitation, sea level pressure, and station pressure
data. ORNL/CDIAC-53, NDP-041. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

GHCN Version 2:
Peterson, Thomas C. and Russell S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical
Climatology Network temperature data base, Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 78, 2837-2849.
Peterson, Thomas C., Russell S. Vose, Richard Schmoyer, and Vyachevslav Razuvaev,
1997: Quality control of monthly temperature data: The GHCN experience. International
Journal of Climatology, submitted.
Easterling, David R., Thomas C. Peterson, and Thomas R. Karl, 1996: On the
development and use of homogenized climate data sets. Journal of Climate, 9, 1429-
1434.
Easterling, D.R. and T.C. Peterson, 1995: The effect of artificial discontinuities on recent
trends in minimum and maximum temperatures. Atmospheric Research, 37, 19-26.
Easterling, David R. and Thomas C. Peterson, 1995: A new method for detecting and
adjusting for undocumented discontinuities in climatological time series. International
Journal of Climatology, 15, 369-377.
Peterson, Thomas C. and David R. Easterling, 1994: Creation of homogeneous composite
climatological reference series. International Journal of Climatology, 14, 671-679.

Helders, Stefan. 2003. www.world-gazetteer.com.

NCDC. 1994. Global Daily Summary, CD-ROM, Version 1.0, March 1994. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data
Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

11
NCDC. 1996. International Station Meteorological Climate Summary, Version 4.0, September
1996. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

12