Latest News (hidethedecline)
RUTI: Global land temperatures 1880-2010, part 1
|Posted by Frank Lansner (frank) on 23rd October, 2011|
|Latest News (hidethedecline) >>|
... Between 1950 and 1978, the BEST results for global land temperatures have 0,55K more warming than RUTI. Otherwise, the 2 datasets are strikingly similar ....
Fig1. First estimate of global land temperature trends. As always in the RUTI project, data are unadjusted GHCN and the main efforts in the RUTI project is to identify areas of similar temperature trend before averaging - this due to limited data periods made available from GHCN (see more). As will be the case for all data sources, older data, especially before 1900 has limited data as foundation. All RUTI data in the present article use 1961-90 as base period.
1) Temperature peak in the latest decade appears to be around 0,22 K warmer than the 1940´ies heat peak.
2) We see a strong temperature decline 1940-78 around 0,55-0,6 K.
Lets compare with the Berkeley´s BEST project:
Fig1a. Recently, Berkeley released data for land temperatures as shown. Lets compare Undajusted GHCN/RUTI with Berkeley:
Fig1b. (Red RUTI graph is 10 yr avg.)
1) Temperatures recent decade is
RUTI: 0,2-0,25 K warmer than warm peak around 1940
BEST: 0,75-0,8 K warmer than warm peak around 1940
2) Temperature decline after 1940-1978 is
RUTI: Approx 0,55-0,6 K
BEST: Approx 0,1-0,15 K
BEST has around 0,55 K more heat in their results than RUTI, and that this difference mostly occurs between 1950 and 1978.
Fig1c. The difference in temperature trends 1950-78 is best illustrated by setting temperatures 1940-50 for the two datasets to be equal.
Differences in temperature data 1950-78 is no news to say the least. For example is has been discussed in the following article:
From this article.
If you take a closer look at fig 1c, perhaps the period of difference is mostly occurring over the 28 years 1950-78, because the first decade of the decline 1940-78 also occurs in BEST (and GISS and CRUTEM3)
If RUTI has significant errors exactly in the period 1950 to 1978 this is truly odd.
1950-78 is definitely a period with far most data available from Unadjusted GHCN, and should be just about the most solid part of the RUTI data.
Imagine that BEST was correct, and RUTI was 0,55K wrong 1950-78....
- Then IN AVERAGE I should have added 0,55K to ALL temperature sets used (around 1200) between 1950-78.
This is absurd:
IF THERE WAS NO 0,55K DECLINE IN TEMPERATURE DATA 1940-78, THERE WOULD BE NO 0,55K DECLINE IN UNADJUSTED GHCN DATA AS SHOWN IN THE RUTI PROJECT.
About RUTI global land temperatures - First estimates.
Fig2. The first estimate of RUTI global land average is based on the above blue areas.
Primarily the central North America data are not yet included, and some central Asian areas.
Red areas: Data not available or too low quality for any scientific use.
White areas: Areas that still needs further analysis, and some of these will be included in RUTI.
Fig3a. Northern hemisphere continents show great similarity.
Remember: If BEST was correct, each area should include a 0,55K ERROR decline 1950-78.
Fig3b. For Africa and then the 2 SH continents, trends are somewhat more mixed. Especially Australia shows a much more flat trend than all other continents.
MORE DETAILS: See much more details on all areas from the RUTI project .
Below the large area trends and weighting shown.
Fig5. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig7. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig8. in the Asia data we have included the large Siberian area.
Fig9. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig10. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig11. This area includes parts of Afghanistan, all Pakistan, India, most of Bangladesh and a bit of Burma.
Fig11a. Temperature trends for China. (A small part of China near himalayahs highest altitudes is not yet included. I am writing on RUTI: Himalayah article for that area, coming up).
Fig11b. China, trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig12. Australia trends.
Fig13. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig14. Europe temperature trend.
Fig15. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
Fig16. North America trend, however most central parts missing still:
Fig17. In the next estimate RUTI global land temperatures the remaining North America will be included. The trends found in the above areas are weighted as shown, and the resulting trend is used with weight as full North America in the global trend, to get closest to the correct result.
Fig18. South American temperature trends.
Fig19. Trends for areas weighted as shown.
See much more details on all areas from the RUTI project .
Last changed: 24th October, 2011 at 10:46:43Back
|Armagh temperature series of N. Ireland||By Unknown on 8th December, 2011 at 23:40:55|
|Hi Peter Azlac and thankyou again for inputs!
I have been overloaded doing the RUTI USA - quite exciting - but im slowly eating my way through all your links and inputs still.
The Armagh paper is BRILLIANT, possibly the best candidate of an Irish NON-COASTAL temperature series in not too urban location, brillliant. And the Amargh series do once again confirm that these non-coastal locations generally has colder trend than Coastal, now also to be observed in Irdeland - allthough differences are not overwhelming.
I will move on to the next links you ahve provided.
K.R. Frank Lansner
|More on zonal climate change||By Unknown on 23rd November, 2011 at 15:24:58|
|Re my earlier comment about global warming being zonal, we now have confirmation from Briffa in the latest ClimateGate II emails that the long run stations show both warming and cooling on a zonal basis!
date: Mon Nov 13 14:36:53 2000
from: Keith Briffa
subject: warming trends
I have asked Tim to email a map (actually 5 maps) of surface temperature trends for the
globe, (4 northern seasons and annual) . They are based on all grid boxes with at least 70
years of data between 1901 and 1999. They are in colour - with anything green, blue or
purple showing negative trend (not robust trends but it won't matter). The bottom line is
that if you show the annual map in the Synthesis paper, there are quite a few areas that
have not warmed. Incidentally, the significant trends are indicated as areas enclosed in
black lines, and southern Greenland and the oceans to the east of it have clearly cooled
(though most boxes are NOT significant. Other cooling areas are extreme south east USA
;west central South America; east central Africa and south east China. Probably 95 per cent
of the area with data has warmed though. If you just plug in all areas with at least 25
years coverage , very large areas of the map cool. I am now thinking and talking about the
regional projections with Tim.
Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784
Note that another email casts doubt on the significance of any of the data in the temperature series through understatement of uncertainties and inappropriate use of statistics:
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
…. any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.”
Note that using PCA analysis Rothamsted manage to turn the raw data that shows the historical warming and cooling trends ( into a “hockey stick” graph:
I know these cycles are real because I was born in the UK in 1940 and have lived through two of them!
Also note that email 0010 discusses a paper by Thompson claiming that the dip in temperatures after 1940 was due to wartime measurement errors reducing the real warming by 0.3K! Though in another email Jones claims that both warming and cooling are caused by burning coal!
There are several other emails of relevance but I will leave those to you.
|Thanks again, Peter!||By Frank Lansner on 20th November, 2011 at 17:27:11|
|- A Comment regarding how many and how few stations it takes to make a fair estimate of temperature trends:
Angel and Koshover used just 43 stations from radio sondes over the NH, and they got a result pretty mch like Jones 1982, checkout fig 3.1:
IF you choose stations with scientific care and skill, then it does not take that many stations to come up with something useful.
However, if you have an agenda, few stations are much easier to use when producing a result to fit this agenda. AND I see no scientific argument why not use ALL available stations with fair quality of data? The AGW is NOT under funded, so why not use the veru best and largest data foundation if you have nothing to hide?
|AGW "theory" and Pan Evaporation||By Unknown on 20th November, 2011 at 13:25:01|
|Yes I am aware of the scope of your project and appreciate the effort you are putting into it. My comments are an attempt to help broaden this scope.
As to the UK records for the lower half of the country, the Met Office reference I gave you lists 18 on the map but, apart from Oxford, Lowestoft and Southampton, all of which have significant UHI problems, they are all, with a couple of exceptions, short records from the 1940’s onwards and most also have UHI problems – Rothampsted is the only long run site where the population change is known and so can be corrected for. I am sure that many more records exist but not readily available; for example all of the Government agricultural experimental stations, like Rothamsted, will have detailed records but only from the 1940’s. Other long term records are probably from private estates but not readily available.
This brings up another point. According to BEST a 2% sample of their records (c.a. 700 sites) gives the same result as the full 39,260 sites and I have seen elsewhere that it only takes 60 sites at random from the GHCN database to replicate the GISS, CRU and NOAA temperature series. That being so, one is tempted to suggest that they are all similar because they are measuring noise but if not it means that we only need the long term records from around the World to give an adequate picture provided they are representative of the climate zones. At the very least BEST should make this analysis before they claim that their slice, dice and weight method has validity.
In this respect the late John Daly has such records at his site (http://john-daly.com/
http://john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#North%20America%20%28excl.%20Arctic%29 ) many of which show either a cooling trend or no trend during the 20th century.
A check on AGW “theory” can also be made from the pan evaporation records used in the control of irrigation worldwide – since, according to this “theory”, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause an increase in surface temperature (though they use MAST) and increase the evaporation of water. In fact the records show no such increase up to 1990:
You will be interested to compare the map of transpiration for Australia with your division of that country into areas of similar temperature change:
|UK temperature series||By Unknown on 19th November, 2011 at 14:56:29|
|The UK does have a network of stations run by the Met Office - the other part of HadCRUT to the CRU. You can find details here:
They compile series for different parts of the UK but whereas CET agrees with CRUTEM and the other UK series it does not do so for the series covering the same area:
CET versus Meteo
CET versus CRUTEM
Concerning my comment on the need to analyze temperature trends zonally in order to understand the implications for crop production, here is a reference to a global crop atlas that indicates the relevant crop zones:
A world atlas of crops:
Finally I gave a reference to the work of Lubos Motl but I should have pointed out that this work does something similar to you in organizing areas with similar temperature trends through the use of Voronoi graphs. He finds most of the cooling trends to be in the oceans - which are a more realistic site to measure long term temperature trends because of their high heat capacity. These areas show some links to trends on land for NW USA and SE Australia though not for Europe, Africa and Asia, again suggesting zonal effects, at least over the time frame of these data.
|Thankyou Peter Azlac!||By Frank Lansner on 18th November, 2011 at 15:12:22|
|You present a golden chest of links and info which im thrilled to check out carefully. More, I have the impression that you have understood exactly that RUTI is in an evolving state, and thus will be expanded with both more results, data availability, discussions, compares etc.
Right now im doing "RUTI USA", which itself is extremely exciting, but also time consuming.
Just to be 100% sure:
You do know that the present article builds on data mostly shown in more details in the general RUTI project?
You can also find much more from RUTI in the LEFT column.
I will comment more on all your inputs as soon as I can get a chance from RUTI USA, however one comment on the English lower stations, noncaostal that are all air bases: Yes, this is true, However,
1) What scientific reason is there fore GHCN to show all these tiny periods of data?
2) When you remove these (useless) stations, the whole central lower UK seems to have hardly any stations, perhaps ecxept CET. At least of somewhat rural character.
Is this realistic?
K.R. Frank Lansner, And thankyou or input - that i will check out further.
|Cooling Trends||By Unknown on 18th November, 2011 at 12:38:59|
|I have two comments on your Ruti project which I find to be excellent in concept but so far perhaps somewhat limited in application, though I am sure you will rectify this in the future.
My first comment concerns your treatment of the cooling trends found by Lubos Motl in 30% of the GHCN series (http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/where-is-the-data-that-actually-shows-a-strong-and-important-warming-effect-of-co2-191.php ) and also by BEST in 30% of their 39,000 series. I consider that a global temperature anomaly is of little value in determining the causes of climate change that are clearly linked to cycles in planetary, solar, lunar and ocean cycles of differing periodicities that involve lags of varying length. These impact global temperatures on a zonal or regional scale over differing time periods, for example: the 11 year lag in the Arctic Gyre that affects the AMO and AO oscillations, hence the climate in Western Europe and N Africa; the link between Sam and ENSO and the climate in Australia, S America, S Africa, Indonesia and India as well as teleconnections to the AMO, and the PDO and climate in NW America and E Asia. This means that your approach is the correct one but it must account for both warming and cooling stations.
At a more practical level these effects long term are seen in the well defined global climate zones (Mediterranean etc) that define where particular crops will grow and how these boundaries move with climate change –e.g. the northern boundary for growing maize has moved some 200 km north in the USA during the last warm period but will move back with current cooling with implications for food supplies. The same applies elsewhere and is what we should be concentrating on defining as it has the greatest impact on our lives. So the question is are these 30% of cooling stations linked to particular climate zones and should Ruti show these separately from the warming stations.
The BEST project in evaluating the UHI effect in the USA finds that these cooling stations are largely in the SE but mixed in with warming stations - such that there is something odd going on. I suspect it is because in their UHI evaluation they do not take into account the impact of changes in agriculture that can create these cooling trends – irrigation, crops that have a cooling effect by transpiration or, as you find, differences in elevation. Whatever it is, it is not good science to simple average them out with warming stations and claim a UHI effect does not exist; we need to know the reason why these different trends exist side by side.
(http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI) Then we have the study of these cooling stations started by Tony Brown but not completed in which he also found this cluster in the SE USA but also that they were distributed around the Earth and not just coastal stations. http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
My second comment is on your appeal for information on temperatures stations in the UK. Most of your current ones are well known US Airforce bases. The best UK record is the 120 years of data from the Rothamsted Experimental Station which you can be sure is accurate – http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n20/cutting.htm
The better known CET record, of which it is a part, is not a good choice since it has had some fifteen station changes and is a mix of climate zones; as can be seen from a comparison of its components: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004438.html and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ParkerHorton_CET_IJOC_2005.pdf
For NI Ireland and Eire the best record is the over 200 year record from a single site at Armagh that shows a good relationship with the N Atlantic SSTs, hence AMO: http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf and http://printfu.org/armagh+observatory
|Done!||By Frank Lansner on 25th October, 2011 at 11:06:09|
|Yes, true :-)||By Unknown on 25th October, 2011 at 10:45:10|
thx, K.R. Frank
|10 year average||By Unknown on 25th October, 2011 at 03:34:59|
I think you need to shift your 10 year average to the left by 5 years.
|By Unknown on 24th October, 2011 at 15:02:24|
|There were Newsweek and Time Magazine articles published in 1974 and 1975 about the possibility of a coming iceage based on the observed temperature trends of the 1950s and 1960s. It seems unlikely that those articles would have been written if the current adjusted temperature trends represented the truth.|