From the we told you so department and The Hockey Schtick: It is all about nighttime influence on minimum temperatures, mostly due to the heat sink effect of urbanization and nearby structures and paving.
New paper finds “surprisingly, there are many US weather stations that show cooling” over the past century
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US “monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century].
In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.”
In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures “and even some cooling” of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.
According to the paper, the warming in minimum temperatures is regional, with the SE US showing “the least warming (even some cooling),” suggesting that other processes such as ocean and atmospheric oscillations are responsible, rather than a uniform warming from AGW.
Note these results are after the huge up-justments made to the US temperature data and urban heat island [UHI] artificial warming, which could account for all or most of the warming of minimum temperatures.
Trends in Extreme United States Temperatures
| Abstract |
|---|
From our 2012 draft paper: Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:
A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
==================================================================
Love that.
“Up-justments”.
“I was colder than I thought!”
Cue the predictable alarmists quote of “the US is just 2% of the Earth’s surface”, then cue the “you’re missing the point” replies.
Note that merely on the basis of atmospheric long-wave absorption bands any temperature increase would likely occur in the minimum temperatures (night, winter, etc.).
Careful not to over egg the UHI effect, Surfacestation irregularities notwithstanding. The reason for this discrepancy is mostly the greenhouse effect which limits the rate at which heat leaves the atmosphere at night. We are all aware of the way high humidity and cloud cover leads to warm nights. The point we should be making is that greenhouse warming is not harmful as it mostly effects night time temperatures and minimums, not potentially dangerous daytime maximum temperatures.
It takes a lot of effort on the part of many bureaucracies to keep that hockey stick from getting limp.
===================================================================
Where I live roughly 60°F overall have been added to the record lows between 2002 and 2012.
===========================
I think it’s gone beyond Viagra.
Are there any ‘proofs’ for global warming that do not involve the use of manipulated statistics or dodgy computer models?
“suggesting that other processes such as ocean and atmospheric oscillations are responsible, rather than a uniform warming from AGW.” (re nighttime warming)
I guess the obvious heat urban heat sink phenomenon warming the nights wasn’t suggesting itself to these fellows. I remember an uncle of mine getting married in Yonkers in 1950 – he was warned that it would be a lot hotter and muggier in downtown NY in July and better in Yonkers. Sheesh, ordinary folk were aware of this over 60 years ago.
Dave N says:
March 25, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Cue the predictable alarmists quote of “the US is just 2% of the Earth’s surface”, then cue the “you’re missing the point” replies.
Yeah, but…
supposedly the US monitoring sites were/are the best in the world.
So, if the US sites have such a debatable level of reliability, how bad must the rest of the world’s information be?
I doubt if there is anyone who calls himself/herself a “climate scientist” disagrees that the planet’s climate has warmed since the end of the LIA, but I suspect beyond that there isn’t so much agreement on how much it has warmed, especially when one analyzes the siting and accuracy problems.
“There are many stattions that show cooling” Even NCDC/NOAA records show cooling .
The following are monthly temperature trends for Contiguous US or 48 states as calculated by the NCDC/NOAA Climate at a Glance web page for the last 16 years [1998-2014]. The figure reflect the linear trend in Fahrenheit degrees per decade per NCDC/NOAA web page data t o March20,2014 using base period of 1998-2013
WINTER (-1.78 F/DECADE) – DECLINING
DEC -1.21 F/decade (declining)
JAN -1.52 (declining)
FEB -2.77 (declining)
SPRING (+0.21 F/DECADE)- RISING
MAR +1.4 (rising)
APR -0, 21 (declining)
MAY -0.56 (declining)
SUMMER (+0.48 F/ DECADE-RISING
JUN +1.19 (rising)
JUL +0.25 (rising)
AUG -0.01 (declining)
FALL( -0.44 F/DECADE-DECLINING
SEPT +0.06 (flat)
OCT -0.61 (declining)
NOV -0.76 (declining)
ANNUAL(-0.38 F/DECADE-DECLINING
Summary
8 months are declining, 1 month is flat, and 3 months are rising
WINTER AND FALL have DECLINING TEMPERATURES
SPRING AND SUMMER have RISING TEMPERATURES [Spring is almost declining with 2months out of three declining]
The night time bias is discussed very nicely by Dr John Christy in the APS transcript at about page 374. Transcript at http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Dr Christy provides real data for temperatures in the troposphere and compares with the models. Same effect off models running hot. Well worth reading the whole transcript. Dr Christy’s section begins on page 300
This statement is most interesting:
“In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures “and even some cooling” of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.”
A more benign climate is a prelude to an episode of long-term glaciation.
UHI is a poor term. Economic Heat Island is a little better, but not very good because of financial distortions. Agriculture and civil engineering/land use changes are probably huge contributors to land surface temperatures.
Having stumbled upon many stations with cooling trends a good while ago (http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/), speculated on the many possible reasons for this (http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/how-best-to-deal-with-cooling-cities/ http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/examining-urban-heat-islands-part-2/), it’s good to see such studies appearing in the literature.
US stations with cooling trends were also fairly obvious when mapping station trends:
Verity, I’ve added your map to the head post, and added the scale from ClimateApplications.com Thanks.
The Climastrology adjustments are objective, unbiased and based on rigorous methods. We can calculate to within very, very small changes in temperature. That’s how we do things, just listen to the
‘necessary’ upward adjustmentsvoodoo science.Adjust for this!
http://youtu.be/t-sXHl3l-rM
The siting classifications clearly nails what’s going on – there is no other explanation of significance except UHI for the data. All the other would-be causes would affect all the sites
equally, which is clearly not the case.
Yeah, we’ve known about the alarmists fiddling the weather data for years. But they are called “the Church of Global Warming” because they act like young-Earth Creationists in that there is absolutely no falsifying their hypothesis. This isn’t going to do the trick, either.
We need to upgrade their ability to face reality. That means searching intently for where they are RIGHT. And they are fundamentally right in Keeling’s CO2 graph. An alarmist site I looked at this week referred to a society for the preservation of the Keeling graph. But I first saw it here.
That graph is not natural–not with that timing. Modern civilization caused that graph. But what does it mean?
The little annual wiggles provide a clue. Carbon dioxide goes up in the winter when plants and animals are dying. It falls in the summer when plants are photosynthesizing. So that graph means either–the Earth’s carrying capacity is rising due to burning fossil fuels (as suggested by leaf area indices) or that we are looking at a Great Dying due to soil-destroying modern agriculture.
I believe it is both.
So how do we make the liars right? By thanking them for pointing out the Keeling graph and directing the Environmentalist movement toward truth. They want to heal the world–which DOES need a great deal of healing. And they can only really heal it if the tell the truth and deal with the truth.
@Dave N – they are becoming predictably boring. Well done.
this goes on and on with MSM coverage of scary CAGW stories; nary a sceptical mind on show:
26 March: Business Spectator: Roz Pidcock: How the media’s preparing for IPCC impact
Ahead of its official launch on Monday, parts of the media have been previewing the second part of the report on climate change impacts, after it was leaked online a few months ago.
Here’s our rundown of which of what’s been making the pages of our newspapers;
‘Immediate and very human’ risks
Seth Borenstein for Associated Press gives a succinct rundown of the “immediate and very human” nature of climate change impacts. On the report’s key messages, Borenstein says:
“The big risks and overall effects of global warming are far more immediate and local than scientists once thought. It’s not just about melting ice, threatened animals and plants. It’s about the human problems of hunger, disease, drought, flooding, refugees and war, becoming worse.”
Alister Doyle for Reuters describes how climate change impacts are already being felt across the world, putting pressure on governments to act. Growing risks include food and water security, violence and conflict, health risks, species losses, extreme weather and slowed economic growth…
***Primed and ready
The scale of climate change impacts is huge – from heatwaves, to crop production, to sea level rise. And the range of topics covered in our newspapers so far would seem to bear this out. The media is primed – get ready for a more detailed look at some of these issues as delegates in Japan thrash out the exact wording of the Summary for Policymakers – ahead of its official release next Monday.
Originally published on Carbon Brief.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/26/policy-politics/how-medias-preparing-ipcc-impact
Doesn’t the “US Temperature Five Year Mean” chart show the NCDC reported as cooler than the actual readings? Is the chart labeled correctly? What am I missing?
what pecision!
26 March: Salon.com: Lindsay Abrams: 10,853 out of 10,855 scientists agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame
Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change
As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,855 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus, as he defines it, looks like this…
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_out_of_10855_scientists_agree_man_made_global_warming_is_happening/
Am I the only one that questions taking the average of the good sites +.155, and the bad ones +.248 and getting +.3 something, instead of +.202? What the hell kind of average is that?
Verity,
From your map I get the impression that “no change” and “cooling” far exceed “warming.” Am I reading that correctly?