Munging Madagascar

http://www.jmu.edu/international/images/map_madagascar.jpgSince we’ve been talking about IPCC’s “Africagate” recently, it seemed like an opportune time to point out what sort of GISS station adjustment goes on in data from it’s nearby neighbor island. Welcome Verity Jones first guest post on WUWT. FYI for those who don’t get the implied data munging  title, “Munge” is sometimes backronymmed as Modify Until Not Guessed Easily. – Anthony

Guest post by Verity Jones

This started out as a discussion point following E.M. Smith’s blog post Mysterious Madagascar Muse. The gist of the original article centered around the availability of data after 1990 in the GHCN dataset and the NASA/GISS treatment of temperature on the island. Well Madagascar has a bit of a further story to tell. I had offered to plot a ‘spaghetti’ graph of the temperatures from the ten stations used on Madagascar, and this has proven interesting as an example of how data is adjusted and filled in by GISS.

To start, the annual mean temperatures plotted on a graph (Figure 1) show clearly the differences between the stations – Antananarivo is high altitude and relatively cool, with a cooling trend; of the other stations, some have cooling trends, most are warming. Also noticeable is the very sparse data after 1990. Note the darker blue data for Maintirano, of which more later.

Figure 1. Annual Mean Temperatures for Undadjusted Madagascar Stations.

With such temperature differences between sites, obviously you cannot just average the temperatures. This is what it looks like if you do (Figure 2), and it clearly does not work as an average temperature for the island.

Figure 2. Averaged Annual Mean Temperatures (Clearly Wrong!)

Normalizing each of the temperature series by calculating the mean temperature for that station for the baseline period of 1951-1980 allows plotting of an anomaly-based ‘spaghetti’ graph (Figure 3). This shows what looks like warming-cooling-warming climate cycles very clearly and it is possible to fit a third order polynomial trendline though the averaged data. I’ve seen this again and again for data I’ve plotted around the world (incidentally these were for WUWT regular TonyB).

Figure 3. Normalized Unadjusted Annual Mean Temperatures for Stations on Madagascar

Now for the interesting bit – how GIStemp adjusts the data. GIStemp takes rural datasets and uses them to correct for urban warming. In this set of ten unadjusted stations there were three rural ones: Maintirano and two overlapping but separate ones for Antalalava (why kept separate?). In the homogenized set, only Maintirano, which has a large warming trend of 1.16 deg. C/century, remains unadjusted and all the other stations (Figure 4) have the trend increased – it seems to match Maintirano.

E.M.Smith finds seven other rural stations within 1000km that may contribute to homogenization. They also show cooling to about 1965-1975, then a warming trend. This is lost from the homogenized data.

Figure 4. Annual Mean Temperatures for Adjusted Madagascar Stations.

So overall what effect does homogenization have? – well a big one. Having started into a better understanding of calculation of anomalies, I decided it was better to leave that for the present, but a straight average of the normalized unadjusted and homogenized overlaid with a 10 year moving average for each (Figure 5) shows just what homogenisation does for the ‘anomaly’ value for Madagascar calculated this way – it stabilises the base period and significantly warms the subsequent years.
Figure 5. Comparison of Unadjusted and Adjusted Normalised Annual Mean Temperatures for Madagascar.

Given that several of the stations show a cooling trend prior to homogenization, and that UHI correction should NEVER be in the wrong direction, this is nothing short of scandalous.

I originally looked at the temperature trends using a database that has been developed over the last two months, but when I checked for any up-dated data on the GISS site, I found the trends were different (Table 1). We’ve now found the reason for that and that is worth investigating in its own right. The answer is simple – bad data. The database QC system throws out any year with missing months of data, and after 1990 the data in most of the Madagascar stations is patchy at best, so the database ignored the data in plotting the temperature trends. It is amazing how much warmer Madagascar is with that patchy data included.

Table 1. Temperature Trends for Data Madagascar Stations: Comparison of Sources with/without QC Control (see text).

One final thing. Even the patchy data stops in 2005, so after this date Madagascar too gets ‘filled in’ data from elsewhere – it seems from the rural stations up to 1000km away – again. And even the stations used to ‘fill in’ have patchy data – many have a gap then ONE DATA POINT in 2009. Note that there was no data for 10 years prior to 2009 in this station.

This is unbelievable. Rather than give a lot of plot examples, check the station hyperlinks below for yourself:

Ile Juan De N 17.1 S 42.7 E 111619700000 rural area 1973 – 2009
Dzaoudzi/Pama 12.8 S 45.3 E 163670050000 rural area 1951 – 2009
Iles Glorieus 11.6 S 47.3 E 111619680000 rural area 1956 – 2009
Ouani (Anjoua 12.1 S 44.4 E 111670040000 rural area 1963 – 1984
Serge-Frolow 15.9 S 54.5 E 168619760000 rural area 1954 – 2009
Ile Europa 22.3 S 40.3 E 111619720000 rural area 1951 – 2009
Porto Amelia 13.0 S 40.5 E 131672150004 rural area 1987 – 200
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
February 9, 2010 12:07 am

Chas (06:12:39) :
That does look useful – thanks!
Mike Rankin (16:39:21) :
Good find – that is a potentially useful site, although getting data by month is slow.
Ron Broberg (20:35:16)
Great. I did not include them individually for the sake of brevity. Now I need to ask what you have done – are these from the same straight GISS records I used, or GHCN V2.mean or…? Are you able to run GIStemp?

February 9, 2010 6:59 am

I’ve run GIStemp, but the charts above are data scrapes from the GISS GIStemp station_data site. I’ve charted the “metANN” column. I’ll put together a bigger post later. I’d like to quantify the different effects of the data truncation and the homogenization temp adjustment. I’d also like to understand what’s causing the data truncation, since that also appears in Darwin. And, third, I’m going to want to recreate the data in DS1 and DS2 because I like the idea of adding the recent 15 years of wx data from WU to fill in for the recent patchy data. OTOH … I do have a full time+ job … so much to do … so little time 🙂

Editor
February 9, 2010 9:26 am

Ron Broberg (06:59:21) :
I’d also like to understand what’s causing the data truncation…
As I understand it, GIStemp homogenizes non-rural stations by comparison with rural ones – any non-rural station that does not have three IIRC matching rural reference stations is not used or the portion for whcih there is no match is not used.
I do have a full time+ job … so much to do … so little time 🙂 Ditto

Verified by MonsterInsights