Imagine, that GHCN took all USA rural stations and cut down to 1960-90. Then took smaller cities limited to 1950-90 or 1960-2010, and then only the largest citiest had long datasets 1930-2010 or longer? Sounds impossible? Well this is what is done for Turkey, Bon apetite.
Turkey is a GOLDMINE of temperature stations, fantastic. A bit like the USA. Every inch of the Turkish soil is covered by a temperature station.
Fig1. The abundance of rural temperature stations in Turkey is absolutely fantastic. The blue icons indicate stations used by GHCN. The green icons indicate that both Hadcrut and GHCN have data for this station, mostly larger cities.
A quick overview of the rural Turkish stations:
Fig2. 82 of Turkey´s 216 temperature series used by GHCN are rural. But to my disappointment not even one single Turkish rural temperature series are made public or used by GHCN outside the period 1960-90. GHCN thus made this it impossible to reconstruct a rural temperature for Turkey. The rural stations may “count” in the statistic of rural vs. urban stations used by GHCN, but they are essentially just not used at all.
In the following, we gradually increase city size to see how this impacts the availability of data.
The first step is then to examine the smallest urban areas – “Sub-Urban” population 10.000 – 49.000:
Fig3. Suburban population 10.000-49.000: Far most (101 !)are treated like the rural series it seems, not available outside the 1960-90 period. In the above suburban series however, a new expanded period is sometimes available, 1950-90. We are allowed to see 10 more years, and also some series are extended to 2010.
One temperature series is extended to start from 1930.
Fig4. For the larger urban areas 50-99.000 still we see a number of datasets limited to 1960-90, but the intervals 1950-60 is added to several datasets, and likewise the 1990-2010 period.
One more temperature series starts 1930.
Fig5. Urban 100-199.000. For this Urban size, still a few 1960-90 cuts, but now the 1950- and 1930 startpoint is dominating.
Fig6. Urban 200-499.000.
Fig7. Urban 500.000 and up. For the largest cities we find one station almost complete available – central Istanbul/Gozt - and still a few 1960-90 cuts that are suburbs to these large cities. In addition an Ankara graph that appears to begin naturally (?) in 1924.
So, what have we learned so far?
All rural stations are cut down to 1960-90. Smaller cities are typically limited to 1950-90 or 1960-2010, and then only the largest cities has long datasets 1930-2010 or longer.
What happens if we compare data 1960-90 between those data from the (often rural) 1960-90 sets with data from the 1950-90 sets and data from the 1930-90 sets etc. Here goes:
Fig8. All datasets has pretty much the same trend. In fact, the 1930-90 sets has slightly cooler trends than average. This is a little unusual, but by now we should think that rural data, urban data shows same trends?
Fig9. - But the apparent similarity between the different categories of city sizes (length of data) vanishes if we add just the 1950-60 period of compare. So is it a coincidence that exactly in the 30 years of rural data availability, there are no differences in trends for city sizes?
A Turkish temperature reconstruction. Obviously GHCN has made it impossible to show a rural temperature trend for Turkey, but heres the best I can do at this point:
Fig10. The 1950-2010 are best represented by the 1950-2010 sets, the smallest towns.
Therefore I Stitch the 1950-2010 trend with the early years from larger cities. This will obviously far from omit urban influence, but reduce it a little.
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.