Analysis of Temperature Change using World Class Stations

Guest essay by Ron Clutz

This is a study to see what the world’s best stations (a subset of all stations I selected as “world class” by criteria) are telling us about climate change over the long term. There are three principle findings.

To be included, a station needed at least 200 years of continuous records up to the present. Geographical location was not a criterion for selection, only the quality and length of the histories. 247 years is the average length of service in this dataset extracted from CRUTEM4. 

The 25 stations that qualified are located in Russia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy, England, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Switzerland, France and Czech Republic. I am indebted to Richard Mallett for his work to identify the best station histories, to gather and format the data from CRUTEM4.

The Central England Temperature (CET) series is included here from 1772, the onset of daily observations with more precise instruments. Those who have asserted that CET is a proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures will have some support in this analysis: CET at 0.38°C/Century nearly matches the central tendency of the group of stations.

1. A rise of 0.41°C per century is observed over the last 250 years.

Area WORLD CLASS STATIONS
History 1706 to 2011
Stations 25
Average Length 247 Years
Average Trend 0.41 °C/Century
Standard Deviation 0.19 °C/Century
Max Trend 0.80 °C/Century
Min Trend 0.04 °C/Century

The average station shows an accumulated rise of about 1°C over the last centuries. The large deviation, and the fact that at least one station has almost no warming over the centuries, shows that warming has not been extreme, and varies considerably from place to place.

2. The warming is occurring mostly in the coldest months.

The average station reports that the coldest months, October through April are all warming at 0.3°C or more, while the hottest months are warming at 0.2°C or less.

Month °C/Century Std Dev
Jan 0.96 0.31
Feb 0.37 0.27
Mar 0.71 0.27
Apr 0.33 0.28
May 0.18 0.25
June 0.13 0.30
July 0.21 0.30
Aug 0.16 0.26
Sep 0.16 0.28
Oct 0.34 0.27
Nov 0.59 0.23
Dec 0.76 0.27

In fact, the months of May through September warmed at an average rate of 0.17°C/Century, while October through April increased at an average rate of 0.58°C/Century, more than 3 times higher. This suggests that the climate is not getting hotter, it has become less cold..

3. An increase in warming is observed since 1950.

In a long time series, there are likely periods when the rate of change is higher or lower than the rate for the whole series. In this study it was interesting to see period trends around three breakpoints:

  1. 1850, widely regarded as the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA);
  2. 1900, as the midpoint between the last two centuries of observations;
  3. 1950 as the date from which it is claimed that CO2 emissions begin to cause higher temperatures.

For the set of stations the results are:

°C/Century Start End
-0.38 1700’s 1850
0.95 1850 2011
-0.14 1800 1900
1.45 1900 1950
2.57 1950 2011

From 1850 to the present, we see an average upward rate of almost a degree, 0.95°C/Century, or an observed rise of 1.53°C up to 2011. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the aftereffects of the LIA lingered on until 1900. The average rate since 1950 is 2.6°C/Century, higher than the natural rate of 1.5°C in the preceding 50 years. Of course, this analysis cannot identify the causes of the 1.1°C added to the rate since 1950. However it is useful to see the scale of warming that might be attributable to CO2, among other factors.

Of course climate is much more than surface temperatures, but the media are full of stories about global warming, hottest decade or month in history, etc. So people do wonder: “Are present temperatures unusual, and should we be worried?” In other words, “Is it weather or a changing climate?” The answer in the place where you live depends on knowing your climate, that is the long-term weather trends.

Note: These trends were calculated directly from the temperature records without any use of adjustments, anomalies or homogenizing. The principle is: To understand temperature change, analyze the changes, not the temperatures.

Along with this post I have submitted the World Class TTA Excel workbook for readers to download for their own use and to check the data and calculations. You can download it from this link: World Class TTA (.xls)

For those who might be interested, the method and rationale are described at this link, along with the pilot test results on a set of Kansas stations:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/a-way-of-calculating-local-climate-trends-without-the-need-for-a-government-supercomputer/

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave
July 28, 2014 9:36 am

Be interesting to see graphical representations…..

Howsmart
July 28, 2014 9:40 am

1.1c per century sounds about right for co2 doubling.

July 28, 2014 9:40 am

Two more categories would be of use:
1. 1979 to present – to compare to the satellite record
2. 1998 to present – to compare to “the pause”
I expect the record will deviate from the satellite record due to UHI and siting issues. By how much would be of as much interest as the actual trend reported itself.

Richard Mallett
July 28, 2014 9:44 am

Reply to Dave :-
I suggested this to Ron, but also mentioned that this blog may not be the best medium for that, because there are 25 stations, 12 months, and annual trends, so that could be 325 graphs. What would you like to see ? I have plotted the annual average anomalies from the 1961-1990 average for each station.

July 28, 2014 9:45 am

Interesting, but what does it really mean?
Surely, the 25 stations were all located in urban areas that produced more high rises, electric heaters, etc. etc. over time?
Who knows what happened in fields and woods 1/4 mile plus from the nearest roads in the same nations at the same time?

July 28, 2014 9:46 am

[snip – your comment makes no sense as posted. If you have a point, make it. Drive by comments consisting of one line Mosherisms add nothing to the conversation. You are welcome to re-submit a comment of substance. – Anthony]

July 28, 2014 9:50 am

Richard Mallet;
What would you like to see ? I have plotted the annual average anomalies from the 1961-1990 average for each station.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just average them for the time being, just like you did in the table.

July 28, 2014 9:50 am

“The Central England Temperature (CET) series is included here from 1772, the onset of daily observations with more precise instruments. Those who have asserted that CET is a proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures will have some support in this analysis: CET at 0.38°C/Century nearly matches the central tendency of the group of stations.”
CET is not a station. it has been adjusted and homogenized.
now people will defend using adjusted data. crutemp4 is adjusted and homogenized. CET is likewise.
Here is a clue.
Dont use monthly data as your source.
Dont use “regional series” as your source.
and dont believe that “long stations” are necessarily the best. doubt everything

TobiasN
July 28, 2014 9:58 am

But if there a temperature station that’s been around for 247 years, then it’s probably in a city that has grown all this time, right?

Richard Mallett
July 28, 2014 10:00 am

Reply to davidmhoffer :-
For my list of 28 best stations (Ron dropped one of each pair of stations from the same location) the annual trend from 1979-2010 (the limit of CRUTem4) is +4.78 C/century and from 1998-2010 is -1.77 C/century.

JohnB
July 28, 2014 10:02 am

“The average rate since 1950 is 2.6°C/Century, higher than the natural rate of 1.5°C in the preceding 50 years. Of course, this analysis cannot identify the causes of the 1.1°C added to the rate since 1950. However it is useful to see the scale of warming that might be attributable to CO2, among other factors.”
– You assume the “natural rate” of 1.5°C would have continued and that therefore the rate attributable to CO2 is 1.1°C. What is the justification for that?

chemman
July 28, 2014 10:04 am

Howsmart says:
July 28, 2014 at 9:40 am
—————————————————————————————————————————
The only problem is that the CO2 hasn’t even doubled yet over the period this is talking about. So there is something more going on than changes in the [CO2].

Richard Mallett
July 28, 2014 10:04 am

Reply to davidmhoffer :-
I don’t know how to post images on here. Maybe Ron does.
[Reply: Only those with Edit privileges can post images. But you can post the image address, or link to an image. ~mod.]

njsnowfan
July 28, 2014 10:06 am

Great report and info.
At first glance, the temperature increases seem match increases in solar activities from the period.
Now we need someone to compair this data with true sunspot data in a well laid out chart( not my Art Charts).
Also I know you say they are world class stations but what is the human population growth surrounding the stations and what % of the area surrounding them has been built up with buildings, homes and Black Pavement. Were the areas with less population growth, new buildings, homes and Paved surfaces with more or less of temperature increase.
.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  njsnowfan
July 28, 2014 10:10 am

Reply to njsnowfan :-
Where can I find population data from 1700 to the present for individual locations ?

July 28, 2014 10:07 am

Thanks Anthony.
We knew CET relies on more than one station, but was included because it is a well-respected long record. As it turns out, removing it would change little, since it mirrors the central tendency.
I share Mosher’s distrust of data averages, and intend to look at Tmaxs and TMins. As for regional series, did not Mosher himself once say that 10 long station records would give approximately the same result as that from all records?

more soylent green!
July 28, 2014 10:10 am

The warming is mostly in the winter — oh the horror!

July 28, 2014 10:10 am

Mr. Clutz,
You have done good and valuable work here. Urban Heat Island effects have been shown, in the USA at Las Vegas, to explain as much as 3 degrees C spurious temperature increases since the 1950’s. If there were an easy way to pick a rural station associated geographically with each of your All-Star 25, perhaps with a continuous record of several decades back from present, it seems that your analysis could be made even more valuable.
Your 2.57 C increase 1950-2011 would not seem plausible absent UHI effects, any thoughts?
I appreciate your contribution…

Antero Järvinen
July 28, 2014 10:21 am

Stockholm and Uppsala (Sweden) are close to each other. Stockholm is a large city, Uppsala a small town. Compare the results (trends, etc.)! Best from Finland, Antero Jarvinen

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Antero Järvinen
July 28, 2014 10:42 am

Reply to Antero Jarvinen :-
Overall, Uppsala has an annual trend of +0.10C per century.
Stockholm +0.28 C per century.
Stockholm Bromma (shorter record, not used by Ron) +0.33 C per century.

njsnowfan
July 28, 2014 10:24 am

“Richard Mallett says:
July 28, 2014 at 10:10 am
Reply to njsnowfan :-
Where can I find population data from 1700 to the present for individual locations ?”
I have no idea where to find that data. The influence is most likely small but would like to see what the % is.
Solar activity since the end of the last mini ice age is in line with the data and the strongest solar cycles ever recorded is also in line with the sharper increase since 1950.

JohnnyCrash
July 28, 2014 10:30 am

All of those stations are in cities, so couldn’t UHI could be even larger than 2.57 C. TOBS? Calibration? Station movement? Thermometer changes? etc etc etc.
I don’t think anything can be learned from any of the ground based temperature records. Obviously a lot of $$ can be gained though…

Eliza
July 28, 2014 10:31 am

So its 0.41C per CENTURY (100 years) so probably insignificant either way. Why hasn’t 2012, 2013 and 2014 been included?Thanks for your efforts BTW.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Eliza
July 28, 2014 10:35 am

Reply to Eliza :-
Only because the latest years are not in CRUTem4.

July 28, 2014 10:36 am

Mosher,
The objections here to “adjusted” data, mine included, are based on traditional scientific/engineering standards. Data revision with no political agenda, properly done, is not objectionable. Clearly our current Federal government functionaries have their thumbs on the scale, as Steyer and his ilk have instructed the Dem lackeys in Washington to do.
I just looked at Moshtemp, to get some idea of who you are and why you do what you do. Have you become lost in the trees, no longer able to see the forest? Your defense of BEST methods, while ignoring the political machinations behind them, is disingenuous at best. There is a word an English PhD could appreciate!
Odd that you lecture Mr. Clutz as if he, and all of us, are your students. Not so much…

July 28, 2014 10:36 am

Richard Mallett says:
July 28, 2014 at 10:00 am
Reply to davidmhoffer :-
For my list of 28 best stations (Ron dropped one of each pair of stations from the same location) the annual trend from 1979-2010 (the limit of CRUTem4) is +4.78 C/century and from 1998-2010 is -1.77 C/century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that’s interesting. That 1979 to 2010 is well above satellite, but 1998 to 2010 is well below. I expected the first result due to UHI but the second result baffles me. If they were commensurate with one another, you’d have something of interest for the longer record of the ground stations. But since you don’t, I’m not sure that the record is of use unless you can figure out what the driving factors are in the disparities, and then (dreaded word though it is) adjust accordingly.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 28, 2014 10:49 am

Reply to davidmhoffer :-
Inevitably, the stations with the longest (and most complete) temperature records are all in Europe, so we cannot extrapolate to the rest of the world.

July 28, 2014 10:37 am

Reply to Michael Moon:
No doubt most of these stations are in urban heat islands, many of them located at airports. As we know, it’s the changes in air traffic, population density, buildings, pavement, etc that impacts upon temperature changes.
One clue is CET, a mixture of rural and urban sites, shows the following:
1900-1950 +1.32C/Century
1950-2014 +1.66C/Century

Antero Järvinen
July 28, 2014 10:48 am

Reply to Richard Mallet: Yes, I noticed the difference, too, and made some graphs. A big difference between these neighboring towns, and a small trend in both of them. Antero

1 2 3 5
Verified by MonsterInsights