A UHI Tale of Two Cities

By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts

Fort Collins, Colorado is most famous for Balloon Boy, and Boulder, Colorado is most famous for Jon Benet and Ward Churchill.

Both are hotbeds of Climate Science, with familiar names like Roger Pielke (Jr. and Sr.) Walt Meier, William Gray, Kevin Trenberth and Mark Sereeze.  Both are of similar size (Boulder 91,000 and Fort Collins 130,000)  and located in very similar geographical environments along the Front Range – about 50 miles apart.  The big difference is that Fort Collins has tripled in size over the last 40 years, and Boulder has grown much more slowly.  Fort Collins population is shown in blue and Boulder in red below.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Collins,_Colorado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder,_Colorado

Until the mid-1960s, NCDC temperatures in the two cities tracked each other quite closely, as you can see below.  Again, Fort Collins in blue, and Boulder in red – with Fort Collins temperatures shifted upwards by two degrees to normalize the left side of the graph.  Since 1965, temperatures in Fort Collins have risen much more quickly than Boulder, paralleling the relative increase in population.

Boulder and Ft. Collins - overlaid for trend comparison only

Source: NCDC Boulder Temperatures NCDC Fort Collins Temperatures

The graph below shows the absolute difference between Fort Collins temperatures and Boulder temperatures since 1930.  There is some sort of discontinuity around 1940, but the UHI imprint is clearly visible in the Fort Collins record.  The Colorado State Climatologist, Nolan Doesken manages the Fort Collins Weather station.  He has told me that it has never moved or changed instrumentation. and that he believes the increase in temperature is due to UHI effects.

Roger Pielke Sr. further commented:

the Fort Collins site did have the introduction of the CSU Transit Center a few years ago, although this is well after the upturn in temperature differences between Boulder and Fort Collins started to increase.

click to enlarge

From the promotional photo on the CSU website, the Fort Collins USHCN weather station (below) seems reasonably sited.

click to enlarge

However when you look at the Google Earth street view, you realize that it is surrounded by concrete, asphalt, nearby parking, and a building just 7.5 meters away (By the GE ruler tool). It would rate a CRN4 by the surfacestations rating. It also appears to have been modified since the promo photo was taken as there is a new fence with shrubbery and wood chips surrounding it.

click for interactive source from Google Maps

Besides the pressure of CSU expansion, Fort Collins has seen an increase of about two degrees since 1970, corresponding to a population increase of 90,000.  This is probably a little higher than Dr. Spencer’s estimates for UHI.

The Boulder weather station is similarly sited since the concrete path is just under 10 meters away.

It is at the campus of NOAA’s and NIST’s headquarters in Boulder. Anthony Watts visited the station in 2007 and took photos for the surfacestations project. Like Fort Collins, it gets similar expansion pressure due to nearby construction as seen in this aerial photo.

Here are the temperature records fro these two USHCN stations:

NCDC Fort Collins Temperatures

There is some UHI effect visible in the Boulder record below, but much less than Fort Collins.

NCDC Boulder Temperatures

Conclusion:

We have two weather stations in similarly sited urban environments. Until 1965 they tracked each other very closely.  Since then, Fort Collins has seen a relative increase in temperature which tracks the relative increase in population. UHI is clearly not dead.

Advertisements

283 thoughts on “A UHI Tale of Two Cities

  1. Does Ft. Colling vs Boulder follow the same pattern of the UHI showing the nightime temps (lows) rising where the daytime temps (highs) remain on a fairly level trend?

  2. The area just to the north of the Boulder station is Greenlawn Cemetery, which buffers it from Boulder proper. The only development nearby is that to the south, the former National Bureau of Standards.
    — HM (BHS ’63).

  3. Dudes: you forget that the people in Boulder are, like, cooler. And so they would respond to this Urban Heat Island thing by saying, “Are UHI? Of course I’m high, man!”

    Lame but irresistible try for humor.

  4. But… BUT… all data this is homogenized and anomalized and fortified with calcium to make our bones strong so when it comes out the other side it’s all good right?

    /sarcoff

  5. This shows how valuable the Surface Stations project is.

    When I started writing this story, I was under the impression (based on the CSU web site) that the Fort Collins station was very well sited – until Anthony straightened me out.

  6. Hey Steve, what is the orientation of that Boulder picture and what is the prevailing wind in winter and summer, northerly in winter, southerly in the summer? I guess I’m asking, would a light prevailing wind for any season bring the heat from that vast pavement spread over that weather station? You might be able to coax a bias out of the numbers since Boulder seems directionally biased and Fort Collins definitely isn’t. I don’y think any station analysis has concretely answered that question.

    It appears those are yearly points but if they were season points centered on first day of Nov-Feb-May-Aug the bias at Boulder should appear when split by seasons.

    Fort Collins fixed that symmetry problem by putting concrete all around it, and presto, no wind bias!

    BTW, good post.

  7. Will the boulder station be in the shade for part of the day. It is difficult to see from the images how close the trees are?

  8. Of course UHI is not dead! It seems apparent from this article that despite some similar local conditions (buildings, concrete, asphalt) such that would create an upward bias for the readings of temperature stations in both the Boulder and Ft. Collins, the big difference in population rise would mean that Ft. Collins got lots more houses with their hot roofs, lots more asphalt or concrete driveways and roads to access the houses, lots more schools for the kids from the houses, lots more stores for the kids and their parents to shop in, lots more big asphalt parking lots for the stores, etc., etc., etc. Don’t all these things warm the layer of air air near their surfaces via convection?

    However, some will counter this argument with the notion that there are also lots more people exhaling carbon dioxide, and that their exhaled contribution to global warming is what caused the difference!

    As an aside, I think the “discontinuity” you mention occured around 1945, not 1940 as mentioned in your essay above and pasted below:

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “Boulder and Ft. Collins – overlaid for trend comparison only

    Source: NCDC Boulder Temperatures NCDC Fort Collins Temperatures

    The graph below shows the absolute difference between Fort Collins temperatures and Boulder temperatures since 1930. There is some sort of discontinuity around 1940,….”

  9. Or maybe it all corresponds to the number of people driving Priuses in the “bubble” vs the number of Priuses in Ft. Collins. All kidding aside, I have a friend who works at NCAR and she tells me Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk. No big surprise there.

  10. wayne (09:46:45) :

    Anthony will have to answer your question. He researched the Boulder site and took the pictures.

  11. If Fort Collins has been experiencing an increasingly greater amount of UHI than Boulder over time, I would expect the temperatures at those two sites to be diverging.

    Instead, judging from your third figure their temperatures appear to be converging, with the difference approaching zero.

    What am I missing here?

  12. Dear Mr Watts

    Thank you for running an excellent site. I thought I’d mention some history which might be worth following up.

    In England the Exchequer Pipe Rolls (Medieval tax returns) are very detailed for the whole of England and Wales. I understand, but have not verified myself, that they show clearly te tax returns from the great estates and monasteries in the North of England. These include proof of grape harvests and making of altar wine at places in teh Vale of York where even today growing of grape vines is not possible.

    I further recommend you revisit HH Lamb’s books on Climatology. In one of his earlier works (I have it but cannot locate it just now, being in the middle of a house move to Singapore) he demonstrates, by reference to Exchequer returns and aerial photography, how the use of arable land in England today is different from that in the Middle Ages in the sense that the frost line has moved down slope since circa 1250 AD.

    In short, physical evidence 800 years old demonstrates it was much warmer in Medieval England than it is now.

    Until this and similar evidence is distinguished and explained (it cannot be refuted) by the Warmist Brigade, there can be no suggestion that the climate change we are experiencing at present is “unprecendented”.

    On a separate note, if you ever want to get a Class Action off the ground against the Warmists, please do contact me. I will gladly assist on a costs plus basis – all to be negotiated. I’d love th eopportunity to cross-examine the fraudulent swine who perpetrate the AGW myth.

    Best regards

    Kevin Oram

  13. Okay, what am I missing:

    – In 1970 Ft. Collins had less population than Boulder.

    – In 1970 Ft. Collins had higher temperature than Boulder; and the the trends had already diverged.

    Shouldn’t we conclude that something other than UHI was causing warming?

  14. Boulder is morally superior. They have removed autos from downtown and other endeavors. The geography is also different. Boulder is adjacent to the slopes and mountains and Fort Collins is 15 miles east of the mountains.

  15. Steve, or Anthony are you sure that the jump in readings at Fort Collins in 2000 is due to UHI, if you plot the 2 lines on one graph, it looks more like Fort Collins has been adjusted to Match Boulder?
    They haven’t done a correction have they?

  16. The data that is available is MR Menne’s data, is there any actual RAW data available for the 2 sites?

  17. Kilroi1 (09:53:07) :
    All kidding aside, I have a friend who works at NCAR and she tells me Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk. No big surprise there.

    Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
    I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data.

  18. Mike McMillan has reviewed Illinois, Iowa & Wisconsin and found lots of changes between USHCN V1 & V2.

  19. It would be interesting to see the temperature difference vs. population difference, since that is really the correlation you are looking for.

  20. “There is some sort of discontinuity around 1940,”

    Must have been due to the japs bombing Colorado with those balloons… /sarc

  21. I know you said there was a discrepancy in 1940, but it looked like 42 with my eyes.

    Perhaps a bunch of the population, and therefore energy use, moved or shipped out for WWII?

  22. Thanks for a wonderful report. Now we are getting somewhere.

    I am surprised that there is an UHI in Boulder or Colorado Springs. Both cities are on top the plateau and in the foothills of mountains. The wind is always moving there. If you want UHI, try cities in valleys. My favorite example is St. Louis. There you should find that the UHI is HUGE. The wind moves only when a weather front is coming through. In the city, the environment’s ability to cool itself is all but nonexistent.

  23. “…Boulder, Colorado is most famous for Jon Benet and Ward Churchill.”

    I thought it was famous for Coors Brewery. When I visited the Solar Energy Research Center 30 years ago (DOE boondoggle), a side tour was to Coors. One of my all-time favorite bars, the Dark Horse Saloon (IIRC), was one of our night-time stops (not part of the DOE sponsored trip).

    Back on topic: Are there any nearby rural sites, to use to calculate the UHI of Boulder and Fort Collins?

  24. Kilroi1 (09:53:07) : “…All kidding aside, I have a friend who works at NCAR and she tells me Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk. No big surprise there.”

    I don’t know. I sort of like him and his famous “Trenberth Travesty.” A refreshing bit of honest questioning amidst a hailstorm of pseudoscience.

    wayne (09:46:45) : “…BTW, good post.”

    All posts are good, here. They all implicitly ask the question: wuzupwithat? Science is the asking of questions, not running around in circles saying, “The science is settled! The science is settled!” Only the pseudoscience is settled.

  25. Ref – Hu McCulloch (09:35:09) :
    “The area just to the north of the Boulder station is Greenlawn Cemetery, which buffers it from Boulder proper. The only development nearby is that to the south, the former National Bureau of Standards.– HM (BHS ‘63).”
    ________________________
    Sure seems like a big cemetery would be the best place to put a city/metro weather station:-)

  26. What would be the criteria for ideal station-sitings, considered in context of a comprehensive grid pattern enabling analysts to make valid interpolations over time? Once that is determined, with built-in flexibility accounting for degrees of growth-and-change, it might be desirable –no doubt at vast time, trouble, and expense– to restart this whole project from scratch as a gift to pathetically grateful future generations.

    On ‘tother hand, objectively reliable satellite readings from 1979, transparently and validly adjusted/homogenized for UHI, etc. may well have rendered the entire exercise redundant. meantime, we wouldn’t trust corrupt official measures of surface-temperatures for beans.

  27. Lovely work, Steve and Anthony. I just loved how the different perspectives on the Fort Collins USHCN pictures told quite different stories.

  28. What is the relative humidity history for the two sites? What is the low reading for the two sites? Are they on recording thermometers or are the readings manual and at what time of day? Do they have equal enclosures, they appear different and I am sure they have different paint.

    Too many deltas for each site! Apples and oranges shouldn’t be in the same smoothie.

  29. Well both those town (the towns) are pretty nice places; the people I think all drink Miller Lite. Maybe they never got the yellow snow warning.

    The 1941 glitch deserves some explanation; but it seems clear that the rising differential trend goes all the way back to 1930.

    From the separate graphs, I would say that the glitch occurred in Fort Collins; not Boulder; so the State climatologist maybe should investigate if he thinks no changes were made.

    And yep, looking at those two Fort Collins pictures, I would say they haven’t changed a darn thing ; well you can now walk out of the building over to the owl box without crashing into a fence, or getting your shoes muddy on the wet grass.

    It’s a bit like Oliver Cromwell’s axe in the British Museum; it’s only had two new heads, and just five new handles since Oliver last used it.

    Steve and Anthony, I would say you two guys deserve a beer on this one. But get a real beer; like Negra Modello or a Newcastle Brown Ale; maybe a Hefferweiss !

  30. Temperature trends not surprising at all. Boulder has had growth controls since 1970’s and Fort Collins has not.

    Boulder CRS weather station is surrounded by Green Mountain Cemetery (north) and undeveloped open space-mountain parks to the west. Lots of industrial development to the south on the NIST/NOAA campus. Most of the local tree cover is less than 50 years old although the irrigation ditch west of the CRS dates from the late 1800’s

    Prevailing winds in Boulder and Fort Collins (almost year-round) are from the west and descend from the snowy Continental Divide (13,000 ft) to Boulder (5,300 ft) over about 15 miles. “Chinook” (adiabatic) warming in winter, cool breezes in summer.

    Fort Collins is farther east of the mountain front and is more of a “plains” topographic setting. Flatter terrane has allowed more residential construction all over town.

    The NCAR “Castle on the Hill” is about one mile south of the Boulder CRS. May or may not have an effect, but a bunch of model-making CRAY’s and the cranial emanations of Trenberth-Amman-Solomon-Wigley-etc must generate a bit of heat. Adjustments may be required.

  31. mikelorrey (10:39:52) : “Must have been due to the japs bombing Colorado with those balloons… /sarc”

    Are the Toyotas they’ve been dropping on the US lately more effective? [I’m skeptical.]

    Seriously, I’m most curious about the cause of the 1942 divergence in the T lines. The war effort didn’t really start for the US until 1942, so the discontinuity may be war-related. It goes away about 1950, so it could have been a base or similar temporary installation in Boulder. If it was a large base, the city population may have risen, too. Or did more men get drafted from Ft. Collins?

    USN Japanese Language School, Boulder 1942 — 1946? Sounds too small.

  32. As a CSU grad I’m familiar with the site. Prevailing winds are from the north west, and starting in the 1940s the farm fields to the north and west were plowed up and covered with low cost housing for returning GIs. The same prevailing winds occur in Boulder, and the area upwind of the station has not seen the development as the area up wind of the Fort Collins station. When the transfer station was built on CSU there was talk of getting another station up and calibrated to the existing one for a year or two, but I cant find anything that would indicate this was done.

  33. It looks like in 1970, Ft C still had 20k fewer people than Boulder?
    Also, I see from the links that Boulder has quite a bit higher population density – shouldn’t that matter?
    And a map showing where each station was located in repect to urban development?

  34. It is important to realize that the overlay graph is normalized. Fort Collins is cooler than Boulder by about half a degree. It used to be by 2-1/2 degrees.

    The most important graph is the difference graph – the third one down.

  35. Very interesting and well done article. No doubt the UHI effect has played some role in skewing temperature data, though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis…

    Meanwhile, global tropospheric temps for March have been at or above 20 year record levels every day this month…and continue higher:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    And it looks like we have just about reached are maximum sea ice extent for the winter season:

    And should be headed back down. We did NOT see a positive anomaly this winter in the arctic (and haven’t now since 2004). I thought we might, but as the chart above shows, it didn’t quite make it. It could still turn around and poke into positive territory. More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:

  36. Jim Cole (11:22:09) :

    Fort Collins and Boulder are both right up against the foothills, and the topography and elevation is very similar. I ride my bike around both cities fairly often. Both cities are relatively flat, sloping up slightly to the west.

  37. Tom in Texas (10:56:51) :

    Coors is in Golden. Fort Collins is home to New Belgium (Fat Tire) and Budweiser.

  38. 38,660,924 hits

    The pace is accelerating … Looks like 40,000,000 will roll around next week sometime.

    The blog is becoming more and more influential.

  39. R. Gates (11:35:02) :

    “More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:”

    But more importantly, RECOVERING.

  40. Boulder is intentionally surrounded by open space, which chokes off any growth. Fort Collins has unlimited room to grow on the North and East and is rapidly merging with Loveland to the South. The climate changes dramatically to the North of Fort Collins, where it is not protected by the mountains – and it is very cold and windy towards Wyoming.

    Interesting info here :
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/top100/

  41. Anu (10:36:08) :

    Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
    I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data.

    Nah, he just stole most of the good ideas from other people. :-)

  42. R. Gates (11:35:02) :”More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    An obvious falsehood. The recent trend is strongly upward. The ice is, in fact, currently within one standard deviation of the “average.” Saying the arctic ice is now trending down is like saying someone from LA driving west out of Denver at 60 mph is “trending towards New York.”

  43. jdl

    I am a sailplane pilot and tend to think that you have hit on something. As cities grow, the winds diminish in and around them. I would be willing to bet that UHI is directly related to the change in wind speed due to the build up in the general area, especially at ground level.

    It also occurs to me that concurrent wind speed measurements were kept alongside the temperature readings.

  44. R. Gates (11:35:02),

    You make it so easy it’s fun:

    “And it looks like we have just about reached are [sic] maximum sea ice extent for the winter season:”

    That’s an Arctic graph. Here’s the Antarctic graph: click

    Since Antarctic ice extent is greater than Arctic, what does that tell you about global ice cover?

    You never answer that question, so I will: global ice is increasing: click [plenty more graphs available. Just ask]

    So why do you post only charts of the Arctic? Answer: because the much bigger Antarctic contradicts your beliefs.

    The entire CAGW conjecture is that global warming is gonna getcha. So you try and convince people here, who know better, that the Arctic represents the globe. It doesn’t. Here: click Read it and weep.

  45. Very nice Post, Anthony.

    I hope this will be a part of your coming paper on surface stations.

    We need it all over the world as a part of the “Revence of the Science”, as Schmidt so nicely put it.

  46. R. Gates (11:35:02) :

    “…though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis…”

    Yes, isnt it too bad we can only suspect, and have opinions on it.

    I wonder who’s fault that is?

  47. Ref – R. Gates (11:35:02) :
    “Very interesting and well done article. No doubt the UHI effect has played some role in skewing temperature data, though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis…”
    __________________________
    Nuc bursts are not significant on a global basis either, unless there are enough over a period of time. Though UHI is no where close to the heat generated by a nuc blast for a similiar area, the continuous effect –even given the day-night up-down curve and seasonal variation– is cumulative on the seasonal environment: summers are warmer, winters are warmer, etc., etc.. Would seem to follow that the effects, although minor, can have an impact on weather. (Wonder what a Downwind Effects and Collateral Damage Message would looklike for NYC for a long hot summer:-)

  48. Using Google Earth to look at Fort Collins Station:
    Aerial imagery is dated Oct 14, 2002. Ot shows none of the up grade shown in the newer photo above (from GE street view). It shows construction of paved area to SE. It appears to be about an acre of concrete about 100 feet away. Their is no sign of the wide concrete sidewalks surrounding the station, nor the plantings nor the rock mulch that replaced the grass.
    Streetview images (copyright of photos is 2009) show 6 foot sidewalk and a bus pickup station on the new concrete from 2002 imagery. “Eye altitude” is shown as 5012 ft. Parking spots adjoin the fenced area on the street south of the building and in a new parking lot to the east.

    That would appear to be an impact on the Fort Collins station.

  49. Steve, now you‘ve got me looking and a little station analysis. Here’s my first stab.

    Using NCDC and looking southwest of you, Oklahoma City or Norman show no stations (think they are ACOS) but taking the nearest towns north, east, south, and west of Oklahoma City, each shows basically no trend in the highs but marked rising slope on the low temperatures. All four towns’ graphs and trends are very similar. That’s covering about 6400 square miles, 40 miles each way. Averaging the four highs and averaging the four lows you get these yearly linear trends:
    Highs: y = 0.0016x + 68.605
    Lows: y = 0.0169x + 13.113
    The highs show it will take 1/0.0016 = 625 years to rise 1ºF and the lows show 1/0.0169 = 59 years to rise 1ºF.
    That’s using 1368 monthly data points each.

    Didn’t expect that! The highs are barely moving between 1895 and 2008 but the lows are what are trending higher. I wonder if this is a general truth globally. If the highs raise little but only the lows are getting milder who would see that as a problem? That seems the UHI. Of course, it could just be a regional curiosity; I think I’ll check Texas and northward up the plains for the same pattern.

  50. Isn’t this tending towards all cities are different? All weather station sitings are different. The population density and the industry nearby would have an effect on each weather station . For instance — If there were thousands of people who worked near the weather station site, I bet the UHI effects would be different than at a station site that was situated in a lighter populated usage area of the city.

    The one conclusion I would draw is there are many factors that affect each siting, and likely each site would need detailed on site analysis.

    It’s going to be harder to get accurate data than sitting in an office, I think.

  51. “I thought it was famous for Coors Brewery. When I visited the Solar Energy Research Center 30 years ago (DOE boondoggle), a side tour was to Coors. One of my all-time favorite bars, the Dark Horse Saloon (IIRC), was one of our night-time stops (not part of the DOE sponsored trip).

    Back on topic: Are there any nearby rural sites, to use to calculate the UHI of Boulder and Fort Collins?”

    Coors brewery is in golden, colorado…

  52. During the 1970s a building boom took place but Boulder put limits on growth. For 5-10 miles in all directions around Ft. Collins changed to suburban neighborhoods from dry-land wheat. Both cities are near the foothills but I believe Boulder gets afternoon shadow earlier than Ft. Collins, so it may be more limited by daytime heating. The mountains rise more steeply next to Boulder than Ft. Collins.

  53. wayne (09:46:45) :

    In the photo, up is North. Prevailing winds are from the west, but due to the proximity to the foothills (mountains elsewhere), I believe that there is a pretty good mixing influence.

    It shouldn’t affect the trends, but Boulder is closer to the foothills than Ft. Collins. It may seem logical, but Ft. Collins has spread more with it’s growth. What growth Boulder has seen is mostly by filling in open spaces. The perimeter of the city has not changed that much in the 20 years that I’ve been here.

    There’s a saying around here: I’ve already moved here, now keep everyone else out.

  54. It is also interesting to note from the aerial that the cemetery is irrigated up wind of the Boulder site, providing a false cooling effect.

  55. UHI is similar to a teenager’s face.

    If you map the global color of his face with color sensors located mainly on pimples (airports and city centers) and use them to make a gridded average, the face is pretty red. If you trend it from childhood the graph forms a hockey stick.

    I think the climate scientists will experience global face redding as people figure this out.

  56. It would be cool is surface stations also had metadata for things like
    historical populations.

    For small towns this is hard to come by using online information from US census.. but state census, library, historical societies.. neat work for the historically inclined..

  57. Gallup

    “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you of your way of life in your lifetime?”

    67% No
    32% yes

  58. Steven & Derek: “Coors brewery is in golden, colorado…”

    Long term memory loss. I believe the Solar Energy Research Center was also in Golden. The bars we hit were in Boulder (a college town?), but not that far from Golden.

  59. >> R. Gates (11:35:02) :

    Very interesting and well done article. No doubt the UHI effect has played some role in skewing temperature data, though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis… <<

    It wouldn't significantly change the global temperature anomaly, but it will significantly change the measured global temperature anomaly.

    A much bigger concern is that, in 15 years of taxpayer funding for climate reasearch averaging about $2B / year (in the US alone), there hasn't been any effort by the professionals to do a site-by-site comprehensive analysis of the effect. This should be one of the earliest and most basic studies of climate research.

  60. @ Pascvaks (10:58:02) :

    ________________________
    Sure seems like a big cemetery would be the best place to put a city/metro weather station:-)

    But then you would be accused of burying the data.

  61. steven mosher (13:28:19) :

    Thanks for the links. Those sites are interesting, but are up in the mountains and mostly on the other side of the Continental Divide. Boulder and Ft. Collins are very similar college/climate science towns with well maintained long-term records, which is why I chose them.

  62. oMan: the coolness factor … nice one.

    I guess that makes those of us up here in Canada WAY cool.

    Your attempt at humor reminds me of a Canadian prairies inside joke:

    Why is Saskatchewan so windy?

    Because Manitoba sucks and Alberta blows!

  63. It would take some detailed research to verify but I believe Boulder saw some effects from WWII activitites.

    My father was sent to University of Colorado for radio school training in Sept 1942.
    This implies a large influx of military trainees into the university in that time period.
    The University might have enrollment numbers available to confirm that.

    The new (at that time) National bureau of Standards facilities in Boulder were built sometime prior to 1954 (their first Cesium based atomic clock was moved in 1954 to their “new facilities in Boulder).

    http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/atomichistory.htm

    Boulder Reservior was built between May 1, 1954 – February 11, 1955
    http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7417&Itemid=454

    Reservoir construction is often driven by increased water needs of rapid growth. There was a major suburban building boom in the early 1950’s all over the western Metro area. Arvada, Broomfield and Boulder all saw growth during that period.

    Ball Aerospace boulder was founded in 1956.

    http://www.boulderhistorymuseum.org/timeline.asp
    1951
    Denver-Boulder Turnpike opened.
    National Bureau of Standards broke ground for Radio Propagation Laboratories in Boulder.
    Construction of CU’s $3,000,000 Student Memorial Center began.

    The Denver Federal Center in Lakewood Colorado was built in 1941

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Federal_Center

    In late January 1941, the War Department signed a contract with the Remington Arms Company to produce small arms ammunition. Construction of the Plant started in early March, 1941. Rapidly, the Government built over 200 buildings for the new Denver Ordnance complex, and ammunition production commenced in late September, 1941. Denver Ordnance soon became known for the high quality and accuracy of its ammunition, particularly its lots of .30-06 Springfield rifle ammunition known as M2 Ball, which were highly prized by snipers and other rifle marksmen in the U.S. Army.[1] At the height of production in 1943, the Denver Ordnance Plant was the 4th largest “city” in Colorado with a workforce “population” of more than 22,000. These employees worked day and night, producing over six million cartridges a day.

    Likewise the Rockyflats Nuclear weapons plant began operation in 1951 and was located just south of Superior and Boulder.

    The above suggest to me that there was major growth in the preceding few years, as the War effort took off. A lot of federal operations occurred here in Colorado due to our central continental location. I made a few phone calls but could not run down a local “Historian” that could answer such a question off the top of their heads.

    Larry

  64. “”” Anu (10:36:08) :

    Kilroi1 (09:53:07) :
    All kidding aside, I have a friend who works at NCAR and she tells me Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk. No big surprise there.

    Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
    I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data. “””

    According to legend, Mozart was an arrogant jerk.

    I don’t see any point in attacking Dr Trenberth, based on a third party assessment of his personality. If we don’t like his energy budget cartoon ; which I don’t, we should address that; who knows, it might even stimulate those authors to revise it.

  65. There is a huge difference between these two sites.

    Look at them on Google Earth. Be sure to turn on the 3D terrain feature. Zoom out so that you can see a few miles surrounding each site.

    You will notice that the Fort Collins site is in the middle of the city, about 5 miles east of the mountains, with the Horsetooth Reservoir between it and the mountains. The four miles between the temperature site and the reservoir is almost entirely developed land.

    The Boulder site is only a mile east of the mountains, with nothing but open space between them. In fact it is only about a mile from the Flatirons (a prominent rocky feature that rises 1500 feet about the temperature site) and less than two miles from the summit of Green Mountian, which rises 2500 feet above the temperature site.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Colorado

  66. One more point.

    The Chinook winds in Boulder will nearly blow you off your feet.

    These winds also blow where I live, in Arvada, near the front range, about 10 miles north of Boulder.

    I don’t know if they get them in Fort Collins.

    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity

  67. jorgekafkazar (11:26:33) :
    Seriously, I’m most curious about the cause of the 1942 divergence in the T lines. The war effort didn’t really start for the US until 1942, so the discontinuity may be war-related. It goes away about 1950, so it could have been a base or similar temporary installation in Boulder. If it was a large base, the city population may have risen, too. Or did more men get drafted from Ft. Collins?

    The only large military installations were Camp Hale (10th Mountain Division, 15,000 troops) located north of Leadville and Camp Carson (71st and 104th Infantry Divisions, about 35,000 troops) located south of Colorado Springs. Both posts were built in 1942, but are too far south to have had a physical effect in the Boulder or Ft. Collins area.

    However, there was a *lot* of construction involved. Contractors, laborers, and civilian admin people certainly didn’t all live in Colorado Springs, and Boulder or Ft. Collins would’ve been a tough commute with wartime rationing. Moving to where the work was would have been the sensible option. Evidently, the troops who trained in Colorado liked it there — many of the folks I used to know in the Colorado National Guard were the sons of 10th Mountain vets who moved there after the war.

  68. Bill Tuttle (14:42:17) : “…Both posts were built in 1942, but are too far south to have had a physical effect in the Boulder or Ft. Collins area….”

    Right, Bill. The only thing I could find in a 5 minute search was the Navy’s Japanese school, from 1942 to 1946. The bubble ends ~1950, so there’d have to be some reason beyond the Navy language school.

    Hotrod ( Larry L ) (14:22:19) says above that his father was sent to UC Boulder for radio training in Sept 1942. There may, as he suggests, have been a large influx of military trainees into UC then, in addition to the two schools already mentioned. (Hotrod, was your dad in the Navy or the Army?)

  69. Tom Moriarty,

    This winter has been very cold and there have been no Chinooks to speak of. Normally we get a number of days in January and February in the 60s and 70s, this year we hardly had any days that made it to the 50s, and there has been snow on the ground for months.

    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBJC/2009/12/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=11&monthend=3&yearend=2010&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

    Average high temperature in Boulder has been 41F, which is about five or six degrees below normal.

  70. I completely disagree with your conclusion that this is a population based UHI, but agree that this is a UHI issue.
    First, the population divergence occurs in about 1990 but the temperature diverges about 20 years before.
    Both stations have been located in about the same location for the period of record. Boulder has moved in and out of a residential neighborhood and is currently located on the border of the same neighborhood and a cemetery.
    Fort Collins is located on a university campus.
    Elevation of Boulder is about 5,500 ft and Ft Collins is about 5,000 ft.
    The primary difference here is that Fort Collins is located at a growing University Campus and Boulder is located in more natural surroundings. So it seems to me that change in temperature more reflects the growth of the University, not the growth of the population.

  71. As has been pointed out, the Coors Brewery is is Golden, Colorado, home also to the Colorado School of Mines and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (perhaps formerly the Solar Energy Lab?).

  72. George E. Smith (14:33:37) :

    I don’t see any point in attacking Dr Trenberth,
    ———–
    Comparing someone to Bill Gates and Mozart is not the type of attack most people would complain about.

    But to be fair, here’s his take on a famous stolen email (“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”):

    Kevin Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. His email was referring to his recent paper.
    The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000. Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space? Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don’t we?

    Well, it seems that the answer is no, we do not. But we should!
    ——————-
    It’s a good point – exactly why was 2008 the second coolest year in the hottest decade on record ?
    Exactly where is the extra radiative forcing going ? Improved measurements such as the thousands of ARGO floats have helped, but the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research argues that they could use even better measurements.

  73. UHI is certainly not dead. They’ve yet to get us out of our modern cities and towns, and into villages of mud huts and dirt roads.

    And with nice and neat studies like this one, they won’t be any time soon!

  74. <i.Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk

    No accounting for why? what a travesty!

    ;-)

  75. Tom Moriarity,

    The Fort Collins site is almost exactly 3 miles east of the foothills.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=colorado+state+university&sll=40.533894,-105.03582&sspn=0.168823,0.373878&ie=UTF8&hq=colorado+state+university&hnear=&ll=40.585278,-105.04921&spn=0.168694,0.373878&t=p&z=12&iwloc=A

    The Boulder site is about 1-1/2 miles east of the foothills. Both cities border on a hogback ridge of the same geologic formation. Both cities are about 20 miles away from the high peaks.

    I hike and bike the trails west of both cities all the time including Horsetooth Reservoir, Chautauqua, Table Mesa, Mount Sanitas. Your statement that there is a “huge difference” is simply nonsense.

  76. Steve Goddard (11:38:12)said:

    Fort Collins and Boulder are both right up against the foothills, and the topography and elevation is very similar. I ride my bike around both cities fairly often. Both cities are relatively flat, sloping up slightly to the west.

    Tom Moriarty (14:34:58) said:

    There is a huge difference between these two sites.

    = = = = = =
    First, Steve, this is a great report that puts proper focus on land-use changes near climate/weather stations. Fort Collins has clearly experienced more UHI impact than the cloistered enclave of “The People’s Republic of Boulder”

    But the Boulder CRS site is literally “at the foot of the Mountains” (1500-2500 ft rise) whereas Fort Collins climate station site is miles east of the foothills belt.

    Boulder CRS site gets earlier afternoon shadow, more “up-slope” snowfall in the winter, and is surrounded by more artificially irrigated tree-scapes than the Fort Collins site. And Fort Collins site is downwind from several sq miles of tract-home development, whereas Boulder CRS site is flanked by mostly undisturbed grass/forest to the west and southwest.

    I’ll buy you a Dale’s Pale Ale at Oskar Blue’s in Lyons, midway between!

  77. Anu (10:36:08) :

    Kilroi1 (09:53:07) :
    All kidding aside, I have a friend who works at NCAR and she tells me Kevin Trenberth is an arrogant jerk. No big surprise there.

    Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
    I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    There is no claim in the comment that because his personality is that way that it means his work is fake.

    On Gates—- maybe you have something there since many claim he stole many ideas from Jobs. Also, Microsoft did lose a court case where a man claimed they stole his idea, bundled it for free with other software, and ran him out of business.

  78. Here is a graph comparing the annual average temperature anomalies for Boulder and Ft Collins from the GHCN database:

    (Plotted at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100XJanDecI193020090900210AR42572469007x42574533002x

    There are a couple of discontinuities in Boulder – the station was moved in 1990 and there were no measurements for a few months – then a big jump.
    See: https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/locationGrid.cfm?fid=4128&stnId=4128&PleaseWait=OK for NOAA’s listing of the station location.

  79. Okay, hotrod, here’s my estimate of the number of seniors at UC Boulder for four years in that timeframe:

    1941 361
    1942 345
    1943 331
    1944 242
    1945 231

    Looks like the hallowed halls were emptied out by the draft. If there was any ballooning population or industry, it sure wasn’t working within UC Boulder’s academic system.

    http://www.e-yearbook.com/sp/eybb

  80. Does James Hansen know about this post? You’d think he’d be quick to drop out urban stations instead of all the rural and mountain ones he’s dropping so he could avoid accusations of being biased.

    So whats up Jim?

  81. A C Osborn (10:32:32) :

    What you want is COOP station data.
    I believe somebody had a page that has all the links to where data can be obtained.

  82. Richard Sharpe (11:41:02) :

    38,660,924 hits

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    1/4 billion by 1/1/11 would be fine!

  83. there is a commenter here who seems to think only the USA has UHI from growing cities. That would be a poorly thought out assertion.

  84. Stephen and Anthony.

    Please take a look at the paper I emailed to Anthony a few days ago.
    I have examined six sites in Australia and have found that each has a very stable long term temperature gradient, (some 150 years) but that they vary from each other.

    Some are rising very fast.
    Others slowly or not at all.

    The secret is in looking at maximums and minimums seperately.
    I found that it is the maximums that are they key, which is strange, because the UHI effect is supposed to be because heat is retained at night in urban settings.

    I intend to look at more sites to see if others show the same effect.
    But that will have to wait for some time as I have other duties that I have neglected for far too long.

    Anthony has my email address.

  85. Steve Goddard (14:03:39) :

    Using very long records is showing the longer cycles of warming & cooling repeating.
    This is great for demonstrating how the GISS and others reliance on base period choice leads to a false impression of rising temperatures with catastrophic warming on the end.
    All the warmists are showing is the candy-coated upside of a long cycle with UHI’ed low peanut temps on the end raising the average temp prize;
    That’s what you get with Cracker Jacks.
    Nothing more.

  86. 11 March: Physics World: Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submissionby Michael Banks, news editor of Physics World
    The hockey-stick graph, which is widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community, was later included into the third assessment report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.
    The “trick”, as mentioned by Jones in one of his e-mails to Mann, Bradley and Hughes, is a statistical method that is widely accepted in the climate community and is applied to proxy measurements in the years since 1960. It deals with the problem that some tree rings in certain parts of the world have stopped getting bigger since that time, when they ought to have been increasing in size if the world is warming. According to physicist Rasmus Benestad from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and a blogger for realclimate.org, Jones’ reference to “hiding the decline” could have involved removing some tree-ring proxy data from the analysis after 1960 to produce a curve that agrees better with the evidence for global warming..
    Arnold Wolfendale, who was president of the IOP from 1994 to 1996, says that the evidence is “not worthy” of the Institute and that the submission “further muddies the waters regarding global warming”. Oceanographer and climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam University, Germany, has gone further, calling on the IOP to retract the statement from parliament. “I was taken aback when I first read it,” he says. “The evidence is both misinformed and misguided.” ..
    “I consider it not only inappropriate but highly irresponsible for a body like the IOP to appear to presume a judgment on what is clearly not a simple issue without having the full facts and without presumably knowing the full context,” says atmospheric physicist John Houghton, who is currently president of the educational charity The John Ray Initiative and is a former director-general of the UK Meteorological Office. Houghton has also been the lead editor of three IPCC reports. …ETC ETC
    COMMENT BY BISHOP HILL AT BOTTOM OF ARTICLE
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965

  87. Ot but it seems climategate.com has been hijacked just to let them know. Will not put link here just in case

  88. 11 March: USA Today: Brian Winter: Questions about research slow climate change efforts
    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — The violent threats are not what bother Michael Mann the most. He’s used to them…
    In a rare extended interview, Mann acknowledges “minor” errors but says he has been bewildered by the criticism — including a deluge of correspondence sent to his Pennsylvania State University office that, he says, occasionally has turned ugly.
    “I’ve developed a thick skin,” Mann says. “Frankly, I’m more worried that these people are succeeding in creating doubt in the minds of the public, when there really shouldn’t be any.”…
    Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think tank, says recent events may be causing “the death of the global warming movement as we know it.”
    Others don’t go quite that far, but there have been setbacks…
    It has been a dramatic reversal of fortune for a movement that, just a few years ago, thought it was “invincible,” says Leighton Steward, a geologist and global warming skeptic. “We’ve all been kind of giggling as we watch this thing fall apart,” he says…
    In retrospect, Mann says the movie (An Inconvenient Truth) contributed to a “premature elation” among some scientists that they had won the battle for public opinion on global warming. He also says his colleagues and policymakers were too eager to present certain scientific conclusions as “settled” — particularly with regard to possible consequences from climate change, which he says need further study……ETC
    He says he has been exasperated by the way some politicians, including Inhofe, have portrayed this winter’s snowstorms on the East Coast as undermining the case for global warming, while largely ignoring a recent announcement from NASA that the previous decade was the warmest on record.
    Citing climate data, Mann says “there’s a better than 50-50 chance” that 2010 will be the hottest year ever. That, more than any political statement, could refocus the debate, he says.
    “If we don’t act on this, it’s not a failure of science,” Mann says. “It’s our failure as a civilization to deal with the problem.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-03-10-warming_N.htm
    (so a ‘hottest’ 2010 would prove CAGW!)

    11 March: RTE Ireland: Review of UN’s climate body welcomed
    One of Ireland’s leading climate scientists, Professor Ray Bates, has warmly welcomed an independent review into the work of the UN’s climate advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Earlier this year Professor Bates, adjunct professor of meteorology at UCD, asserted the credibility of the IPCC had suffered due to allegations of data manipulation…
    Professor Bates says this is a very good move because it is vital the IPCC was beyond any suspicion that it was an advocate, rather than giving unbiased, accurate scientific reports.
    He said there was a need for peer-reviewed opinions to be admitted, even if they did not agree with the IPCC mainstream.
    Professor Bates said the IPCC had in the past lacked transparency and a robust review, if adopted, would only add to its credibility.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0311/climate.html

  89. jorgekafkazar said:
    R. Gates (11:35:02) :”More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    An obvious falsehood. The recent trend is strongly upward. The ice is, in fact, currently within one standard deviation of the “average.” Saying the arctic ice is now trending down is like saying someone from LA driving west out of Denver at 60 mph is “trending towards New York.”

    Sure is funny how two people can look at the exact same graph, and one see a trend and one not. The arctic sea ice anomaly is obviously downward since at least 1998…a trend the above linked graph clearly shows. To deny the obvious trend is to show that either you don’t know how to read simply graphs, or you have some agenda not to see a trend where it is quite obvious.

  90. OT but can I put this in here. In British Columbia we pay a carbon tax on our gasoline and it is going up this summer. A Dr. Andrew Weaver who has been mentioned on this site before has comments on Canada’s warm winter this year leaving out Eastern Canada, most of the States Europe and Asia. Also BC had a hot summer last year which he commented on but leaving out the rest of Canada which in most part had no summer. He is a main player in our carbon tax.

    Read this article http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/03/11/13199301.html

    This is what we are up against. He does not mention El Nino or PDO

  91. Tom Moriarty (14:34:58) :

    “The Boulder site is only a mile east of the mountains, with nothing but open space between them. In fact it is only about a mile from the Flatirons (a prominent rocky feature that rises 1500 feet about the temperature site) and less than two miles from the summit of Green Mountian, which rises 2500 feet above the temperature site.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Colorado”

    Tom, this is ridiculous and a strawman argument. The question here is not in how they ARE different, but what is the difference in their CHANGE.

  92. When I used to live in Denver they always referred to Boulder as 30 square miles surrounded by reality… has much changed?

  93. So that’s it … we’re not faced with AGW, but with AMW — Anthropogenic Microclimate Warming, with temperature measurements derived from such sites as airports, wastewater treatment plants, and built-up urban areas with temperature build up due to large areas of concrete and asphalt, with further contamination due to urban creep, where built-up areas slowly encroach upon once rural weather stationn sites.

  94. Jim Cole (15:58:54) :

    Hi Jim,

    Thanks for the feedback and comments.

    Not that it is important, but the Flatirons are about a mile and a half west of the Boulder weather station.
    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=112394479801416151184.0004818f6c2f29185b17f&ll=39.995008,-105.267735&spn=0.089295,0.171318&t=p&z=13&iwloc=00048190debd6e5cc5a89

    Here is the Fort Collins Weather Station
    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=112394479801416151184.0004818f6c2f29185b17f&ll=40.577977,-105.13607&spn=0.088528,0.171318&t=p&z=13&iwloc=00048190e2535014f8746

    There is a small hill half a mile behind the weather station. I go hiking there frequently on Table Mesa.

    Here is the view of the Flatirons from NCAR in Boulder

    Here is the view of the foothills behind CSU’s Atmospheric Sciences Lab in Fort Collins.

    The two cities have very similar settings are very similar settings.

  95. It’s laughable that the hysteria crowd continues to defend their “hypothesis.” You have to put it in scare quotes because it is just so far from real science to even be considered a real hypothesis. The climate scientists like Jones, Trenberth, et. al. have given up any real premise of science. I value their degrees no more than one I might get in from a Internet college degree web site. These are people that have bought in to the Ehrlichian fad of doom and gloom.

    Their movement is dying.

  96. “”” Anu (15:48:03) :

    George E. Smith (14:33:37) :

    I don’t see any point in attacking Dr Trenberth,
    ———–
    Comparing someone to Bill Gates and Mozart is not the type of attack most people would complain about.

    But to be fair, here’s his take on a famous stolen email (“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”): “””

    Well you entirely miss my point. Describing Bill Gates or Mozart as jerks, whether true or not, is not what either of those persons is known for. Neither should Trenberth be judged by that (jerk) standard; he’s a “climate scientist”; not a candidate for sainthood.

    As to Bill Gates; I’d like to see a short list of those persons, who have contributed more to the lives, of more persons on this planet (or any other planet) than Bill Gates.

    I would put down two names as potential candidates; who in their day most certainly did; but that takes nothing away from Bill Gates.

    Those would be Sir Winston Churchill, and former Air Marshall, Sir Hugh Dowding.

    But for any of that trio; we most likely would not be having this discourse today. I’m sure there are others; and probably all of them were regaled, regardless of what they achieved for human kind.

    No Dr Trenberth isn’t anywhere near on such a list; but shall we judge him on his science work, and not on what his personality may be (or not).

  97. And I almost forgot; please do let us in, on your insider information about that famous stolen e-mail.

    Has someone been indicted for that theft ?

  98. It’s always Marcia, Marcia (16:06:01) :

    “Does James Hansen know about this post? You’d think he’d be quick to drop out urban stations instead of all the rural and mountain ones he’s dropping so he could avoid accusations of being biased.”

    To Quote Hansen –
    “Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,’ said Hansen. ”

    If there any real ‘whopper’ errors, they are most likely to be in areas where the data is the poorest and the most Urbanization is taking place.

  99. Steve Goddard (13:57:44) :

    Pearl Street Boulder ia 1.05 miles entrance from the entrance of Boulder Canyon.

    Old Town Ft. Collins is 3.92 Miles from Hughes Stadium and the foot hills.

    See? I can cherry pick too! I was not disputing your analysis, just making an observation for those not familar with the area since I live in between the two cities.

    The measurement station for Ft. Collins is not at the stadium, it’s on the main campus which is over 3 miles east of Hughes stadium stadium and the foothills.

    Due to the proximity and the topology of the foothills (all are not created equal) the Boulder station will spend much more of the afternoon in the shade. However, as I stated, that should not affect the trends.

  100. There are zero sunspots on my climate widget…does that mean we should be on the look out for zombies or something?

  101. Bulldust (17:11:50) :

    When I used to live in Denver they always referred to Boulder as 30 square miles surrounded by reality… has much changed?

    I thought that was Canberra.

  102. Do any of you ‘closed minded AGW proponents’ have more to offer than scripted responses based on perceived socioeconomic comprehension levels?

  103. did i miss this earlier? royal society to be on the review panel?

    10 March: Vancouver Sun: Reuters: U.K. academy to review UN climate change science
    Britain’s science academy said on Wednesday it would take part in a review of U.N. climate science intended to restore trust after a 2007 report was found to have exaggerated evidence for global warming.
    “I can confirm that we are one of the parties (on the review panel),” Bill Hartnett, a spokesman for The Royal Society, said..
    (LOL: Pic Caption: Polar bear photographed in drifting and unconsolidated sea ice in Kane Basin, off Cape Clay, in northern Greenland. Photograph by: Nick Cobbing, AFP/Getty Images)
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/academy+review+climate+change+science/2666267/story.html

    11 March: ABC Australia: Independent body to review UN climate panel
    He (Robbert Dijkgraaf) says the review will focus on what procedures were used.
    “It will definitely not go over all the data, the vast amount of data in climate science,” he said
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2843268.htm

    (the only mention found online that CALLS were made Wednesday for Pachauri to resign)
    11 March: The Hindu:Narayan Lakshman : UN to hold independent review of IPCC: Ban
    The IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri has also recently come under fire for such lapses. Amid calls for his resignation on Wednesday he said, “We have received some criticism. We are receptive and sensitive to that and we are doing something about it.”..
    http://beta.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article236910.ece

  104. OK, last comment here for Steve Goddard, Tom Moriarity, superDBA, and TH (the locals).

    I’ve lived in Boulder for 40+ years and I run past the Boulder CRS site on a regular basis. I know Fort Collins well and I maintain that the Boulder and Fort Collins sites are quite different in terms of solar exposure, winter snow accumulation, nearby “suburbanization”, summer humidity (due to evaporation from ditch irrigation, trees, etc.), and especially conversion of surrounding grass prairie to tract housing.

    I think these factors are consistent with the trends in the raw data. They may/may not affect decadal trends in the data.

    Joseph (09:59:58) asked ” If Fort Collins has been experiencing an increasingly greater amount of UHI than Boulder over time, I would expect the temperatures at those two sites to be diverging.
    “Instead, judging from your third figure their temperatures appear to be converging, with the difference approaching zero. ”

    Actually, the trends ARE diverging but the perception is based on an arbitrary zero-point.

    The embedded caption on the third figure says “Boulder-FtCollins diff”. Comparison of the raw data plots indicates that the calculation was T-FortCollins minus T-Boulder. So the difference values start strongly negative (about -2.5 F) in the 1940’s (because the Fort Collins station was inherently cooler than the Boulder station due to local siting issues). Over time, the difference declined to the point that the stations are near-equal in the first decade of the 21st century.

    Fort Collins warmed much faster than Boulder because the UHI effect in fast-growing Fort Collins was that much greater than in “eco-friendly” Boulder.

    BTW, Boulder has grown slower than Fort Collins in terms of residents, BUT Boulder now experiences about 50,000 in/out-commuters/day due to residential-growth restrictions. Some carbon footprint.

    “It’s a lovely place to live, but you wouldn’t want to work there”

    So, what’ll it be? Dale’s Pale or Five-Barrel Pale Ale?

  105. Having lived in both towns in the ’70s-’80s, I wouldn’t say they are geographically that similar. Boulder is where the mountains meet the plains, but Fort Collins is a true plains town, flat, with the mountains in the distance.

  106. The UHI discussion would be enhanced if it was possible to extract the most relevant satellite records conveniently.

    Since they aren’t calibrated, it would be another set of apples-to-oranges. But. When you’re comparing trends it would be quite handy to have some concept of how the gridcell was trending.

  107. Not that is matters much, but Theo Goodwin (10:54:41) : said that both cities are on top of plateaus and in the foothills of mountains. But in actuality, both are in valleys adjacent to the foothills; Boulder in the Boulder Valley and Ft. Collins in the Poudre Valley (although the Boulder Valley is more dramatic, especially entering Boulder from the South on Hwy 93, where the motto is “Pray for me I drive 93”).

    And yes Coors is in Golden and the Solar Energy Research Institute has become NREL. Both cities are special places but Boulder holds the edge, partly due to it being the home of the Golden Buffaloes, a few Nobel Prize winners (not saying much) and several astronauts, as well as the Bustop Ballet.

    While it is true that Pearl Street in Boulder has a pedestrian mall, one can still drive a park in downtown Boulder.

    Boulder certainly is a liberal bastion, many love Gore and Hansen here.

  108. harrywr2 (18:17:22) :

    I see. So UHI doesn’t work in the rest of the world. Only in the USA.

    Very sound observation there, air tight.

    (sarc/off)

  109. R. Gates (16:34:40) :

    If you are correct that Arctic ice is in a shrinking trend why would it be important? Your implication is that it is because of pollution?

    If it is you need to provide proof of this.

    But if you look at the graphs it is quite clear that Arctic ice is in a growing trend for 3 years running. This cannot be denied.

  110. Steve Goddard (14:03:39) :
    steven mosher (13:28:19) :

    Thanks for the links. Those sites are interesting, but are up in the mountains and mostly on the other side of the Continental Divide. Boulder and Ft. Collins are very similar college/climate science towns with well maintained long-term records, which is why I chose them.

    **************************

    Think the point would be to compare the TRENDS of the two rural sites
    with the trends of these two that you have selected. of course the weather will be different.

  111. Phil M (10:02:28) :
    Okay, what am I missing:

    – In 1970 Ft. Collins had less population than Boulder.

    – In 1970 Ft. Collins had higher temperature than Boulder; and the the trends had already diverged.

    Shouldn’t we conclude that something other than UHI was causing warming?
    ===
    And what happened to the lows after the 1990’s? Both places just stopped getting as cold as they used to get.

  112. Wren (20:44:25):

    Shouldn’t we conclude that something other than UHI was causing warming?

    We already know that it’s natural climate variability. The planet has been warming, in fits and starts, since the LIA. CO2 has nothing verifiable to do with it. If you disagree, provide solid evidence.

  113. The wide array of ideas and concepts put forth by the long list of commenters above in their efforts to explain or further question aspects of the comparative data about these two Colorado communities, dramatically demonstates the near endless factors that influence very local climates. In my town and I suspect in both of the communities in the study, there are a variety of microclimates. The diffrerences from spot to spot and in response to localized changes such as the growth of a nearby cluster of trees or building of a bridge are small, but in fact they are large enough to significantly skew the long term tempereature trends when we are working with tenths of a degree or even a degree and half or so.

    A man who was the State Climatologist of Kansas had a theory that the dust bowl was the result of the burning of the prairie grass and plowing of the prairie as early settlers tried to turn range land into farm land. They changed the albedo of the land from the dark of prairie grass to the pale light tan of poor soil and conventive storms no longer formed and a drought followed; the dust bowl of the 1930s. He says that this was followed by the drilling of artesian wells and irrigation again changing the albedo and the rain returned. I do not vouch for his theory, but I point out how out that he illustrates in his theory how our activities can alter the climate. I cannot say what was taking place in and round these two cities through the years that altered the comparative increase in temperatures.
    Now that we have thousands and thousands of thermometers on line all over the United States, I think we have the resourse to begin to do more studies of localized effects.

    But, all of this underlines the difficulty in producing a meaningful scientific record from the occassional temperature readings that we have historically relied upon. Instead, I strongly think we should look a the bigger picture of temperatures as produced by the new satellites where we seen through average of the multitude of local effects blended together in a full atmosphere scan and where we break lose of from just surface temperature data in our average and consider the full depth of the atmosphere. This is briefly explored in my recent interview with John Christy, Ph.D. who with Roy Spencer has done the studies of full atmospheric temperatures from satellite data. I will post that full interview soon on my webpage.

    And, that brings up, one more point. I just posted my full interview with our host Anthony Watts inwhich he gives his full powerpoint presentation on surfacestations.org. It is viewable at

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/87131742.html

    Sorry about rambling on, so.

  114. Smokey (20:56:11) :
    Wren (20:44:25):
    Shouldn’t we conclude that something other than UHI was causing warming?

    We already know that it’s natural climate variability. The planet has been warming, in fits and starts, since the LIA. CO2 has nothing verifiable to do with it. If you disagree, provide solid evidence.

    —-
    You are addressing me with your response to Phils M’s comment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to address me with a response to my comment?

    Here again is my comment:

    And what happened to the lows after the 1990’s? Both places just stopped getting as cold as they used to get.

    Any thoughts?

  115. If UHI is the accumulated heat from the sun on asphalt and buildings, and one site is cut off from the sun even an hour earlier than the other, that site cannot warm as much with all else being equal. I am not saying they are equal, but Boulder has a higher population density than Denver according to Wiki. I lived on the front range from 1972-92 outside of Masonville, and have to disagree with you Steve about the mountain shadows falling on these respective cities.
    These Google Earth shots each have a 5 mile horizontal line for relative comparison:
    Boulder: http://i44.tinypic.com/212ze6x.jpg
    Ft. Collins: http://i40.tinypic.com/2112hbo.jpg

  116. R. Gates (16:34:40) :

    jorgekafkazar said:

    R. Gates (11:35:02) :”More importantly though is the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    An obvious falsehood. The recent trend is strongly upward. The ice is, in fact, currently within one standard deviation of the “average.” Saying the arctic ice is now trending down is like saying someone from LA driving west out of Denver at 60 mph is “trending towards New York.”

    Sure is funny how two people can look at the exact same graph, and one see a trend and one not. The arctic sea ice anomaly is obviously downward since at least 1998…a trend the above linked graph clearly shows. To deny the obvious trend is to show that either you don’t know how to read simply graphs, or you have some agenda not to see a trend where it is quite obvious.

    There are conventions established for describing trends in financial circles. Stocks (and bonds, and commodities, etc.) are considered to move in trends of varying length, conventionally called long-term (or major), mid-term (or intermediate), and short-term (or minor). (There are even super-cycles of multi-decadal length (supposedly), and ultra-short intra-day trends.) These trends aren’t the same as statistically significant trends. They are just established by observing a pattern of higher highs and higher lows, for a rising trend, for instance, or a rising moving average trendline. (Such averages may be short, intermediate, or long-term, depending on the number of periods in their average.)

    It’s therefore possible to be both in a bearish trend AND a bullish trend concurrently, if the bearish trend is a countervailing “correction” within a longer-term bullish trend, or the bullish trend is a short-term rally within a longer-term bear market. (There were six such false rallies after 1929 until the real turnaround in 1932.)

    Obviously, this is the situation with Arctic ice extent: we have a long-term decline and a short-term increase. If someone says the long-term trend is down, he’s correct. But if he says the ice extent “is” declining, he’s wrong, because at present it is rising, and an unqualified “is” implies the most recent trend.

    Similarly, if someone says the ice extent “is now” rising, or “is recovering,” or even “is trending upward,” he’s correct, because that’s what it is doing currently. But if he says that “the trend is up,” that’s not correct, because saying “the trend” without qualification implies the “major” or long-term trend, which has actually been declining.

    So when one side corrects the other, it shouldn’t say that the other side is wrong, just that its claim lacks the qualifier that is necessary to provide context.

    The current year-to-year trend is up over the past two years, so R. Gates was making an overstatement to claim that the year-to-year trend is down. That implies that skeptics are basing their claim on a period that is shorter than a year or two, which isn’t so. He should have said something like, “the five-year moving average trend is down, despite the recent uptick (or blip).”

  117. MikeC (17:04:15) quotes me as follows…

    Tom Moriarty (14:34:58) :

    “The Boulder site is only a mile east of the mountains, with nothing but open space between them. In fact it is only about a mile from the Flatirons (a prominent rocky feature that rises 1500 feet about the temperature site) and less than two miles from the summit of Green Mountian, which rises 2500 feet above the temperature site.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Colorado”

    Mike C. then replies…

    “Tom, this is ridiculous and a strawman argument. The question here is not in how they ARE different, but what is the difference in their CHANGE.”

    My Response…

    Mike C., I am not making a “straw man argument.” I am not disputing the diverging temperatures between Fort Collins and Boulder. I am simply pointing out the important (for this discussion) fact that the two sites are quite different.

    Steve Goddard says in the first paragraph of the article that both sites are “located in very similar geographical environments along the Front Range.” I think that statement misses some important differences.

    Compare the following two annotated images, on the same scale, from Google Earth.

    Boulder

    Fort Collins</b

    The bottom line is that the Boulder site is MUCH closer to higher mountains, and has less (none) developed land between it and the mountains. My guess is that the highly developed four miles between the Fort Collins site and the Horsetooth Resevoir to the west were much less developed 10, 20, or 40 years ago. This point, in fact, lends support to idea that the temperature divergence between the two sites is due to an increasing UHI affect in Fort Collins.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity

  118. jonrgrover (15:37:22) :
    Perhaps we need to place most of our surface stations in large graveyards because they don’t change as much year to year.
    =========
    Probably a good idea, except for the way the stations look. I like the idea of stations in National and State Parks.

  119. superDBA,

    I measured it on Google Earth, and it is exactly 3.00 miles from the Fort Collins Weather Station (NW of the Lory Student Center) to Hughes Stadium. Did you measure by road, or by air?

  120. Wren (20:44:25) :

    The signature of UHI is the highs staying stable in their trends with the lows rising to meet them.
    Natural rural signals are
    a.) dry years – Highs rise as lows drop (greater diurnal range)
    b.) wet years – Highs drop as lows rise (lesser dirunal range)
    c) warm or cool years: Highs & lows rise or drop in unison

    a & b are best viewed in separte yearly graphs.
    UHI & c are best viewed in long-term graphs.
    Unfortunately, we have climatologists who don’t bother to look and see what the stations/areas they are making big claims over are really doing.
    They play with averages only, and totally miss the bigger picture.
    Well, if that all one does, it’s easy to be misled.
    And if one wants to mislead, cherry-pick the statistic that shows only what you want the world to believe.
    AGW: Blindfolded science.

  121. George E. Smith (18:15:33) :
    And I almost forgot; please do let us in, on your insider information about that famous stolen e-mail.

    Has someone been indicted for that theft ?
    ————-
    If they don’t catch the person that steals your car, does that mean it wasn’t stolen ?

    Here’s what a whistleblower looks like:

  122. Wren,

    It has been cold in Colorado in recent years. This winter in particular seems endless, after a non-summer in 2009. Winter started the second week in October.

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
    baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

  123. <>

    Are a thousand days enough data points or when does your statistics say a trend is provably broken or do you even know?

  124. Oops… mod replace previous…

    R. Gates (16:34:40) :
    To deny the obvious trend is to show that either you don’t know how to read simply graphs, or you have some agenda not to see a trend where it is quite obvious.

    Are a thousand days enough data points or when does your statistics say a trend is provably broken or do you even know?

  125. Concerning
    Steve Goddard (15:56:30) :

    Steve said “The Fort Collins site is almost exactly 3 miles east of the foothills….I hike and bike the trails west of both cities all the time including Horsetooth Reservoir, Chautauqua, Table Mesa, Mount Sanitas. Your statement that there is a “huge difference” is simply nonsense.”

    Steve, perhaps you will amend your conclusion that my statement is “nonsense” when you compare these two Google Earth images, which are on the same scale…

    Boulder

    Fort Collins

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty

  126. Jim Cole (19:53:58) :

    I have lived in both Boulder and Fort Collins. In both cases I was about two miles away from the weather station. The climates are nearly identical, except that Boulder tends to get more warm days in the winter and a little more snow.

    But that isn’t the point. What we are discussing here is not absolute differences, but rather relative changes at each station. Fort Collins has warmed relative to its past, more than Boulder has warmed relative to its past. This is undoubtedly due to UHI.

    Right now it is 39 in downtown Fort Collins and 7-12 degrees cooler at the south and east end of town.
    http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=40.53468&lon=-104.99428&zoom=12&type=hyb&units=english&rad=1&rad.num=1&rad.spd=25&rad.opa=70&rad.stm=0&rad.type=N0R&rad.type2=&rad.smo=1&rad.mrg=0&wxsn=1&wxsn.mode=tw&svr=0&cams=0&sat=0&riv=0&mm=0&hur=0&fire=0&tor=0&ndfd=0&pix=0&dir=0

  127. Tom Moriarty,

    You keep bringing up the fact that the area immediately to the west of the Boulder weather station is not developed. Isn’t that the whole point of this article? Fort Collins has grown more and is warming faster than Boulder.

    Thanks for confirming my point. The Boulder station is a little closer to the mountains, but who cares? We are talking about relative changes, not absolute differences. As long as the positions are fixed at each station. What a ridiculous straw man.

    Did you figure out which direction Boulder is from Arvada yet?

  128. Steve Goddard,

    It is a sad thing that you would treat somebody who actually agrees with you on your UHI point, and has said so in a previous comment, with such sarcastic comtempt.

    But I urge readers to compare the two images mentioned above to see my point

    Oh well.

    Best Regards
    Tom Moriarty

  129. Eric Flesch (19:59:24) :

    I continue to be baffled by comments like yours. Here is the view from the west end of CSU. Looks like mountains to me.
    http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/

    The west edge of town abuts the mountains just like it does in Boulder.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=80525&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=54.928982,95.712891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fort+Collins,+Larimer,+Colorado+80525&ll=40.456352,-105.644531&spn=0.834897,1.495514&t=p&z=10

    It is an incredibly steep bike ride from Hughes Stadium up to the A, gaining 700 feet elevation in just over a mile. Try riding it and then tell me that Fort Collins is in the plains.

  130. When looking at something like this, I always start by using the longest datasets that I can find. This gives me the big picture, and then I move on to a more detailed view.

    So I got the population data (citations in original post), along with the unadjusted GISS temperatures from here. I subtracted the Boulder temperature from the Fort Collins temperature, and plotted that along with the populations of the two cities. Here’s the result:

    Figure W1. Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperatures and gaussian average (left scale) and Populations (right scale). Darker blue line is the linear trend of the temperature differences. Photo is of Boulder City from the Flatiron Mountains.

    Here’s the problem. The difference in the temperatures has been rising in a nearly linear fashion for over a century. The increase has been remarkably consistent, and does not correlate with the changes in the rate of the population increase. The differences from a linear trend are only ± 0.3°C, while the total difference in temperatures is ± 0.8°C.

    On the other hand, I also looked at the amount of the correction as predicted by Spencer based on population density. To determine his corrections, I used the city areas given in Wikipedia to determine the population density. I used that with Spencer’s results to determine how much adjustment he says should be done. Since the city sizes are so similar, the Spencer correction is only ± 0.12°C.

    However, Spencer still seems to be correct in concept if not in amplitude. While his correction is smaller than the actual difference between the two cities, the correlation is quite good (n=25, r^2 = 0.77, p less than 0.001, adjusted for autocorrelation). Here are those results:

    Figure W2. Ft. Collins – Boulder (Gaussian avg), Spencer Correction, and Regression Result. Because temperature data are only available decadally prior to 1990, temperature results are sampled similarly.Photo is Lory Park looking towards Fort Collins

    The density figures, of course, are only approximate, as the area of the cities has undoubtedly increased over time. However, these will tend to cancel each other out.

    Onwards,

    w.

  131. Tom Moriarity,

    You are doing it again.

    It is four miles from the Weather Station to the Reservoir, but the reservoir is on the other side of the hogback ridge – and hundreds of feet higher than city. Like I told Eric, try riding a bike up to the reservoir. You won’t make it unless you are a serious cyclist in excellent shape.

    Your argument is both incorrect, and a pointless straw man.

  132. Willis,

    Look closer at the data. The increase in temperatures started around 1970.

    There is a discontinuity in the Fort Collins minus Boulder data indicating something is wrong from about 1940-1965.

  133. wayne, steve, rbateman:
    Exactly the same in most Australian sites- warming mostly due to rising minima, and then extremely variable from place to place. Much greater further inland, much less on the coast. None at all in some places.

  134. Steve Goddard (21:34:42) :
    Wren,

    It has been cold in Colorado in recent years. This winter in particular seems endless, after a non-summer in 2009. Winter started the second week in October.
    ====

    Sure, but has the 2009 annual mean matched previous low annual means?

  135. Anu (10:36:08) :

    Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
    I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data.

    Anu, Gates rightfully kept his proprietary materials, “data”, and code secret. It’s value then materialized as successful products serving an innovative need which actually created wealth, as determined by a free market of people risking their own money – by which the products are also continuously field tested.

    On the other hand, Trenberth’s Climate Science “product” would require us all to buy it as is, even before any independent “laboratory testing” to assure its intrinsic value. Nor have questions as to Trenberth’s Climate Science product’s safety and efficacy been addressed by Trenberth’s Climate Science in any meaningful way.

    Hence, agreeing with China and India, NO SALE!

    But, Anu, given your own fear of the alleged CO2AGW disaster, I ask you again, what are you personally doing in terms of your own lifestyle to avert this alleged disaster? Since the alleged CO2AGW disaster is your own strong belief, surely you are obligated to take some very radical action to decrease your own “carbon footprint”?

  136. Tom Moriarity,

    You picked an arbitrary point in the mountains and measured the distance to it. You didn’t measure the distance to the edge of the mountains, and a couple of miles makes no difference to the discussion anyway.

    I ride my bike and hike frequently up into the foothills in both cities. One of the best hikes in Fort Collins is from the football stadium up the hogback ridge and over the top to the reservoir. Why are you arguing about this?

  137. rbateman (21:32:43) :
    Wren (20:44:25) :

    The signature of UHI is the highs staying stable in their trends with the lows rising to meet them.
    ======

    Steve told me “It has been cold in Colorado in recent years. This winter in particular seems endless, after a non-summer in 2009. Winter started the second week in October.”

    So maybe this signature is going away, and Boulder and Fort Collins will no longer have a UHI.

    But how do you know for sure the low’s rising to meet the highs is a signature of UHI anyway?

    It might be best to be non-commital. That way if the signature goes away, you can say you were never really sure it was a signature.

  138. Tom,

    One last image to make the point of what you are doing wrong with your measurements. This is Google Earth showing the west edge of Fort Collins, with the football stadium, the A, and the dam and reservoir on the other side of the hogback ridge.
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_463fpgdpkhc

    The edge of the foothills starts one mile east of the reservoir (right behind the football stadium) and is hundreds of feet lower. It is 3 miles from the Fort Collins weather station to the foothills.

  139. Steve Goddard (22:22:16) :

    I guess I’m a serious cyclist in excellent shape then. :-)

    Actually, the first time I tried to bike up it, I had to stop for a break 5 times. :-( However, it’s much easier on me now (stay in low gear!) and I can make it in one go. It’s kind of fun to run it too, because then you can pass bikers on the uphill slopes. :-) (then they blow by you at 5x your speed on the downhills.)

    Back on topic, since some people have disputed similarities between Boulder/Ft. Collins (I honestly don’t think you’ll find a much better pair of cities for UHI testing), has anyone looked at population growth/temperatures for Loveland (assuming they’re available) and compared them to these two cities? If the growth rate is significantly different from Ft. Collins, it’d make an excellent comparison as NO ONE should argue about the similarities of the two cities (assuming the monitoring sites are reasonably similar.) Just a thought.

    -Scott

  140. Steve Goddard (22:27:14)

    Willis,

    Look closer at the data. The increase in temperatures started around 1970.

    There is a discontinuity in the Fort Collins minus Boulder data indicating something is wrong from about 1940-1965.

    Having at your suggestion looked more closely at the data, I agree that there is a discontinuity. My analysis shows the discontinuity is in January 1942.

    However, this does not mean that the increase starts in 1970. We can see this in the trends of the Ft. Collins minus Boulder data.

    The trend 1897 through December 1941 is 0.20°C/decade.
    The trend February 1942-2009 is 0.20°C/decade.
    The trend 1970-2009 is 0.19°C/decade.

    On the other hand, the trend 1897-2009 is 0.11°C/decade, because of the discontinuity.

    To find the discontinuity, I used a simple method. I fit a linear regression to the part of the difference series before the month being tested, and another linear regression to the part of the series after the month being tested. I add the residual sum of squares of both linear fits.

    This test is repeated for all months of the time series, and the month with the lowest residual sum of the squares is the month with a potential discontinuity. That gave me the location of the discontinuity, which was January 1942.

    w.

  141. By the way, you can use the same method to determine (by trial and error) the amount of the discontinuity. In this case, it is a step change in January 1942 of ~ 0.6°C. Unfortunately, correcting for the step change in the differences destroys the correlation with the Spencer algorithm … go figure.

    w.

  142. A general point

    Can anybody comment on the remarkable absence of any work on the other data-series that have been collected along with the thermometer readings? I am thinking of baro pressure, humidity, windspeed & direction, cloud cover/sunlight records, as well as rainfall.

    After all, if we are looking for evidence of the changing bio-environment, to my mind it is more likely to be defined by changes in precipitation patterns than these increasingly suspect air-thermometer records.

  143. Steve Goddard (22:15:21)

    I delivered mail one summer in Fort Collins (1975), substituting for carriers on vacation. The whole city is flat. Only rural delivery went uphill. The city will have grown since then, but that’s how it was in 1975.

  144. Here is the same graph as in Figure W1, but using the corrected data:

    Figure W3. Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperatures and gaussian average (left scale) and Populations (right scale). Darker blue line is the linear trend of the temperature differences. Data prior to January 1942 have been decreased by 0.6°C, per the analysis detailed above.

  145. By the way, people are always complaining that skeptics’ analyses do not get investigated here in the same way as AGW supporters’ analyses. Next time someone says that, point them here. This is a scientific site, and anyone’s claims are up for critical examination. That’s the beauty of the site, it is science at its finest. Kudos to Anthony Watts for fostering the true scientific spirit.

  146. Steve, Willis:

    There is a problem with the underlying data for Boulder, CO if you look the data up with the flags turned on in the USCHN site Steve got the plots from.

    From 7/1895 thru 4/1897 there is an E flag
    From 7/1910 thru 8/1910 there is an E flag
    From 9/1910 thru 11/1911 there is an X flag
    From 12/1911 thru 2/1912 there is an E flag
    From 3/1912 thru 4/1912 there is an X flag
    From 6/1936 thru 6/1939 there is an X flag
    From 11/1956 thru 7/1958 there is an X flag
    From 5/1970 thru 1/1971 there is an X flag

    according to NCDC that means:

    There are five possible values:
    Blank = no flag is applicable
    E = value is an estimate from surrounding values; no original value is available;
    I = monthly value calculated from incomplete daily data (1 to 9 days were missing);
    Q = value is an estimate from surrounding values; the original value was flagged by the monthly quality control algorithms;
    X = value is an estimate from surrounding values; the original was part of block of monthly values that was too short to adjust in the temperature homogenization algorithm.

    Thats a whole lot of Filnet for Boulder. On the other hand Ft. Collins has no flags in it’s data history. So you have to ask is the deviation really in the record or in the Filnet program?

  147. If you can find 50 – 100 pairs like this in different geographies, then you will get your definite answer on UHI.

    Don’t know how easy that is.

    A real research proposal, perhaps??

  148. Smokey (12:13:19) :

    R. Gates (11:35:02),

    You make it so easy it’s fun:

    I certainly thought it was fun.

  149. removing trees! shame! and it sure would have made a BIG difference.
    Anthony I hear you Might??? be coming to Aus. Please do:-) we’d love to hear you speak, I am trying to find info re places round where I live to maybe arrange a venue.
    Hansen out here spewing lies sure needs Rebuttal!

  150. Scott Covert (13:23:05) :

    UHI is similar to a teenager’s face.

    If you map the global color of his face with color sensors located mainly on pimples (airports and city centers) and use them to make a gridded average, the face is pretty red. If you trend it from childhood the graph forms a hockey stick.

    I think the climate scientists will experience global face redding as people figure this out.

    Steve,

    That is very funny and insightful. May I have your permission to use this illustration?

    Finally, some real benefit from acne.

    Well, there is another benefit. It proves you are not a eunuch.

  151. Tom_R (13:40:17) :

    A much bigger concern is that, in 15 years of taxpayer funding for climate reasearch averaging about $2B / year (in the US alone), there hasn’t been any effort by the professionals to do a site-by-site comprehensive analysis of the effect. This should be one of the earliest and most basic studies of climate research.

    When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science.

    — Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

    It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

    — Dr Watson, the author, addressing Doyle, the author, in “A Scandal in Bohemia”

  152. Steve Goddard (14:03:39) :

    steven mosher (13:28:19) :

    Thanks for the links. Those sites are interesting, but are up in the mountains and mostly on the other side of the Continental Divide. Boulder and Ft. Collins are very similar college/climate science towns with well maintained long-term records, which is why I chose them.

    You mean you didn’t select the sites because of Balloon Boy and Ward Churchill?

    Colorado certainly seems to have more than its fair share of wackiness. Maybe not to the same extent as California, but in the same league. My friends and family are always commenting on how many strange coincidences and stories are right here, in the front range.

    For example, why did the Islamic wannabe terrorist set up operations here in Denver, getting a job as, of all things, a shuttle bus driver at Denver International Airport? Was there something about our city or air or water convincing him this would be a good place to purchase women’s hair products for hydrogen peroxide? http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/25/nation/na-terror-plot25

    And Balloon Boy?

    What’s the deal with the Columbine Massacre and the more recent repeat?

    I don’t know, but it is strange.

    I still love Colorado. In particular, I really do like Boulder and Ft. Collins. Nice places both, but have suffered from the growth.

    But Steve, really liked the article. Good job.

    Also, Dillon probably wouldn’t be a good place for long term temp studies. The original town is now under water from the dam. That might have affected the temperatures.

  153. George E. Smith (14:33:37) :

    I don’t see any point in attacking Dr Trenberth, based on a third party assessment of his personality. If we don’t like his energy budget cartoon ; which I don’t, we should address that; who knows, it might even stimulate those authors to revise it.

    George,

    You’re right. It works both ways. I’ve personally met people I strongly disagree with and really liked the person. I’ve also experienced the reverse.

    It should always be the position/opinion attacked, not the person. Sometimes the person we disagree with is simply misinformed. Sometimes they are partially correct. And, quite simply, sometimes we are wrong.

    Always make sure that crow your cooking up for somebody is well seasoned. You might have to eat some of it.

  154. Steve Goddard
    Re the stable USA states since the 1930’s.

    I have forwarded a paper to Anthony abut a study of six Australian sites, widely scattered around the country.

    I found that some have constant or slowly increasing temperatures, some others quite rapid warming.

    The differece is in the monthly maximums – the minimums clump together quite closely.

    Some records go back to the 1850’s.

    My conclusion is that each location has its own long enduring micro climate.
    You can get ant global temperature index you want by carefully selecting sites to suite your expectations – alarmist or denialist, or luke warmist in between.

    I would like to see an analysis of the growth profile of the many stations dropped from the global indexes in the 1990’s – were they growing too slowly and so were considered to be not “fit for purpose”?

  155. Oh dear – there I go again.

    I meant to type “you can get ANY global temperature index to want …..”

    Ants in pants have no place in this discussion.

  156. Wren (23:06:00) :

    But how do you know for sure the low’s rising to meet the highs is a signature of UHI anyway?
    Because when I look at these sites, I make sure I look at the data, all of it, in one big picture:

    Steve told me “It has been cold in Colorado in recent years. This winter in particular seems endless, after a non-summer in 2009. Winter started the second week in October.”
    The time of year most affected by UHI is also the time of year where the Sun angle is the highest and the area of buildings have the greatest daily exposure to direct sunlight. You need to do yearly graphs to demonstrate and test this. And make sure you plot daily highs and lows.

  157. tommoriarty (22:11:49) : I agree with you, it is obvious to me that if you cut off heat, the sun, earlier in one spot than in another, it can not become as warm as the spot that is not cut off. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to convey!? The difference between Boulder and Ft. Collins is clear to me as well, don’t know what Mr. Goddard is so hung up on.

  158. concerning
    Steve Goddard (23:12:22) :
    Steve Goddard (22:44:17) :

    Steve,
    I commend you on the important comments you have made on a variety global warming issues.

    One the the most useful aspects of WUWT is the discussion of the effects of temperature sensor placement. It in in this spirit that I offer my comments about the difference between the Boulder and Fort Collins placement.

    I have added more annotation to my Fort Collins image. It shows the elevation at various points moving west from the Fort Collins temperature sensor placement site. Readers can see it here.

    Note that in the first three miles the elevation changes by only 150 feet. The rise up the Hogback to the reservoir is only another 270 feet in the next mile (This is the area shown in the image you provided at time 23:12:22). This is a total of about 420 feet in four miles.

    Now look at the Boulder image again. Please note that the elevation change going west from the sensor site is over 1700 feet in less than a mile and a half, and over 2500 feet in less than two miles!

    Now, I am agreeing with you (for the third time) that the divergence in temperatures between the two sites is likely due to the UHI effect. The broad flat expanse between the Fort Collins site and the mountains probably was developed in the last 40 years. The folks in Boulder have not been inclined to develop the much smaller, steeper area between the Boulder sensor site and the Flatirons.

    Here is where I disagree with you: Your statement, made in the original article, that the two sites are “located in very similar geographical environments along the Front Range,” is not really accurate in the spirit of WUWT’s attention to site placement detail, as my images show.

    I am genuinely looking forward to your further insights.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty

  159. OK, first things first… you guys need to cut all the talk about topography and hiking, biking etc… YOU’RE MAKING ME FEEL TOO DAMN OLD!
    Topography, elevation, and etc are all irrelevant because the mountain ranges have not changed over the last 100 years. What is there and has not changed in the past 100 years is not going to make a difference

    change change CHANGE CHANGE change CHANGE

    What has changed in the past 100 years is what is relevant.

    Willis, you smoothed out the temperature graph too much, the yearly graph in the original post is fine.

  160. Willis, sorry, I forgot to add that Dr Roy’s population hypothesis is fine because more population eventually leads to more roads, houses, buildings etc… in this case, the changes are still UHI, just proximity to the station. Of course, add an ac unit or bbq and you have even more of the same.

  161. A little OT, but here is a plot of raw, TOB-adjusted, and total-adjusted temperatures for Boulder:
    http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4475/050848.gif
    There was a big adjustment between roughly 1950 and 1970, but all three plots show a very small positive temperature trend. Actually, if you were to “fill in” some points in the raw plot, the trend would decrease slightly.

    Anyway, back to the topic: from a UHI perspective, a flat trend in Boulder (little development to the west) and a rising trend in Ft. Collins (much more development to the west) makes sense since the prevailing wind at night (absent larger synoptic forcing) is from the west. From a “comparing the TRENDS” perspective, these two sites are very similar. All of the details about how far each site is from the foothills, etc. can be used to explain why the ABSOLUTE temperatures are different, but absent anything else, the climatic TRENDS should be very similar. Ft. Collins is affected by all of the same weather systems that Boulder is.

  162. Tom,

    I agree with you that Fort Collins and Boulder are not identical. The sensor in Boulder is closer to the mountains. The foothills in Boulder are generally taller than in Fort Collins, which creates the impression that you are closer to the mountains.

    My disagreement comes more as an avid cyclist who knows that once you hit the western edge of town in both cities, you have some serious climbing to do up over the hogback or up into the canyons. I also have found the climate to be nearly identical in both cities, except that Boulder tends to be a little warmer – as seen in the graphs.

    I have a thermometer on my bicycle and the temperature in downtown Fort Collins is usually at least two degrees warmer than it is two miles away in the south, north or east.

    Note that Horsetooth reservoir is in the mountains, and that the football stadium is right at the base of the mountains.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=80525&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=54.928982,95.712891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Fort+Collins,+Larimer,+Colorado+80525&t=p&ll=40.561352,-105.151005&spn=0.02605,0.046735&z=15

    And the similarity of the geographic settings between the two cities
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Boulder,+CO&daddr=City+Park,+Fort+Collins,+CO&hl=en&geocode=FYqUYgId7rK5-SnTr40nTo1rhzFYgBugfDs5yA%3BFVBKawId6Te8-SmdX-EHFUpphzEOX8AtiVxTfg&mra=ls&sll=40.303618,-105.166626&sspn=0.836792,1.495514&ie=UTF8&ll=40.33503,-105.516815&spn=0.836402,1.495514&t=p&z=10

  163. The article leaves out one very important factor. Boulder did not have an official climate station until 1990. Before that the Boulder record is from many different non-standard locations including the rooftop of the firehouse for many years. There is lots of missing data, including entire months. As a result we know there is a significant warm, dry bias in the pre 1990 data. The article is trying to make interpretations that simply cannot be made due to big inconsistencies in the pre-1990 data at Boulder.

  164. Jack Simmons,

    I agree that Colorado has a disproportionate share of whackos, including another school shooting in Littleton two weeks ago. It also has the highest rate of teen drug use in the country. I was in Boulder once on National Marijuana Day, and there were literally ten thousand stoned students walking from campus towards Pearl Street after a rally. Looked like a scene from Shaun of The Dead.

    Apparently a lot of people take that “Rocky Mountain High” thing a little too literally.

  165. Shevva,

    Mork and Mindy lived just east of downtown Boulder. There used to be a sign at the house. My kids went to elementary school a couple of blocks east of there.

  166. Eric Flesch (01:21:28) :

    The city of Fort Collins slopes away gently from the mountains, just like most of Boulder. Boulder does have some hills up near Jon Benet’s house in Chautauqua
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Boulder,+CO&daddr=City+Park,+Fort+Collins,+CO&hl=en&geocode=FYqUYgId7rK5-SnTr40nTo1rhzFYgBugfDs5yA%3BFVBKawId6Te8-SmdX-EHFUpphzEOX8AtiVxTfg&mra=ls&sll=40.303618,-105.166626&sspn=0.836792,1.495514&ie=UTF8&ll=40.033004,-105.249538&spn=0.105018,0.186939&t=p&z=13

    Fort Collins similarly has hills up around Bellevue and Rist Canyon. In both cities, as soon as you hit the western edge of town, you are climbing steeply up into the mountains.

  167. Wren (22:41:13) :,

    Good question. One data point is the ice cover on the lakes. I have a friend who has lived on the south side of a lake in Fort Collins for 45 years. It is mid-March and that side of the lake is still frozen solid. She says that she has never seen it frozen over this late. Normally the ice is mostly gone by mid-February.

    There also are no crocuses, daffodils or green grass yet, which is very unusual for this time of year. The weather just refuses to warm up.

  168. rbateman (05:06:57) :

    Yeah I hadn’t gotten to checking that yet. I had done something similar to this for Temple Texas because John Slayton noticed something was wrong in a graph that Steve used: The graph had data after 2003 for that station but the station had closed down in 2003.
    See: http://boballab.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/before-using-temperature-data-read-the-fine-print/

    The B-91’s confirmed what John was saying it just took me awhile to figure out what was done. You have to jump thru hoops and look at the bottom of a couple of pages to see where you have to turn on flags and get data to see where USHCN is basically “estimated”. In Temple, Tx case it was 2003 to 2008.

    The real nasty thing in all this is that they are suppose to put in any stations used to extend the record of another into the history section of the station list. When you check the station list for Temple Tx nothing is listed and its the same with Boulder. You can get data in the USHCN “raw” file from their ftp site for Boulder and in the data section on the web interface going back to 1895, but the B-91’s only go back to 1948.

    Now besides Co-op stations USHCN is suppose to have some NWS first order stations and might on the outside chance explain the 1930 to 1948 time frame but I wonder where the data in the Raw file all the way back to 1895 is coming from.

  169. Scott (23:42:18) :,

    Good idea. I don’t know of any long term temperature records in Loveland though, and Loveland and Fort Collins are nearly merged at this point.

    Do you ride up to the reservoir from the north, or the south? Either way is a killer. I broke a chain last spring on the way up and didn’t have any tools with me.

  170. Steve Goddard (07:43:19) :

    Steve, I normally ride up from Hughes Stadium and go north. I’ve gone up on Harmony once or twice, and definitely only gone up on the north end once (my “birthday ride” with my wife last spring…bike about 26 miles (including Centenniel road along the reservoir and get Dairy Queen as a treat!), but in my opinion, going up on the north end is more difficult. I also broke a chain once – the day before Thanksgiving 2005…but I was biking up on the trails by Horsetooth Rock! Some cyclist saw me on the road on the way home and fixed my chain for me…lucky me, it was getting dark!

    It’s too bad that there’s no adequate Loveland station record, that would have made an interesting comparison, depending on station siting.

  171. Scott (08:37:45) :

    My favorite ride in Fort Collins is up Spring Creek trail to the stadium, then up along the reservoir to Bellevue and back down the Poudre Trail. I used to let it run down the hill on the north side of the dam, but after having a couple of accidents I decided that going 45 mph on a bike probably isn’t a very smart thing to do at my age.

    I did a moonlight hike up Horsetooth Rock last summer. Never tried cycling up there though. That is pretty rough terrain.

  172. “”” Anu (21:33:22) :

    George E. Smith (18:15:33) :
    And I almost forgot; please do let us in, on your insider information about that famous stolen e-mail.

    Has someone been indicted for that theft ?
    ————-
    If they don’t catch the person that steals your car, does that mean it wasn’t stolen ? “””

    Well now you have me thoroughly confused. First you say it was stolen; well to be pedantic, you just described it as “stolen”. So I asked if the thief had been indicted; after all if it was stolen, there WOULD be a thief. But if it just ended up “some place else”; that’s not evidence that it was stolen.
    So then out of the blue, YOU come up with something about a whistle blower; seemingly suggesting that a “whistle blower” is someone whose caricature is printed on the cover of Time Magazine. In stark contrast to that; the “Climategate” thief/whistleblower/whatever; merely dicombobulated a whole United Nations International Conference; that was calling for panic situation drastic action to be taken to reverse a problem, whose existence has yet to be proven; (s)he/them/whoever only succeeded in getting the head of the Institution, from which the “stolen” e-mail was stolen/whistled/blown/whatever, to resign in disgrace; although the British Parliament did interrupt its running of the United Kingdom, to investigate the whole matter; so far to no conclusion, as to the theft/whistle blow/whatever, of the “loss” of taxpayer funded information; which despite being “stolen”/whistleblown/whatever, was still there in plain view for all to see. But the thief(ves)whistlers/blowers/whatever, di have some satisfaction in getting worldwide major scientific societies to agree to investigate the event, and even got the United Nations to have an independent review of the practices of the entire UN IPCC climate science reporting, and international government advisory panel.
    But I agree none of that turmoil is on a par with having a caricature printed on the front cover of a weekly magazine.

    But speaking of having my car “stolen”, but never catching the thief; well as it happens, that occurs all the time; quite embarrasing actually; because quite often, I go out to get in my car, to drive home, only to find, it has been “stolen”; it’s not there any more. Well I haven’t actually ever had it whistleblown or whatever; but most of the time it turns out that I just parked it somewhere that was different from where I thought I had parked it. Well I even parked my son’s car once, so he had his mother drive him over to his brother’s place to get it, and it turned out that I had actually parked it at the repair shop 12 miles away from his brother’s place..

    Not too difefrent really from creating a compact file of damaging e-mails, so they can be quickly fed to the dog in an emergency; and then accidently putting them on a public server where anyone could read them; well not that I’m suggesting that happened in this case; it’s just that that is like forgetting where I parked my car, and thinking it was stolen.

  173. Steve Goddard,

    At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’d like to make one more comment about the topography of Boulder vs. Fort Collins.

    I am no expert on the UHI effect, but I assume that two sites that are identical in every way, including population history, but with the single exception of ground wind speed, will have different UHI histories. This due to the simple notion that the wind will blow the heat away from one but not the other.

    That is the reason that I brought up the Chinook winds that are so common in Boulder. NOAA says “Boulder has some of the highest peak winds of any city in the US.” I can attest to this, having lived on the west side of town (Bear Mountain Drive) just below the hill upon which NCAR resides, and quite close to the NIST site where the temperature sensor is located. The wind velocity drops off rapidly as you go to the east side of town.

    Chinook winds aside, the difference in topography likely has other, less dramatic effects on wind speed, temperature and direction.

    Stronger winds, especially on the western side of Boulder where the temperature sensor is located, would tend to mask the UHI effect.

    I humbly suggest that because of its microclimate, Boulder may not be a good comparison site for UHI studies. Remember, the unachievable, but *ideal* comparison pairs would be the same in every way (including typical winds), except population history.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Arvada, Colorado
    12 miles southeast of Boulder ;-)

  174. boballab (07:39:30) :

    To answer that question for the missing B-91’s for Boulder, you need to go to Boulder station list:

    050848 10 01 1893 02 28 1894 G S THOMSON
    050848 03 01 1894 04 30 1894 R E CRANDALL
    050848 07 01 1894 06 30 1895 W W REMINGTON
    050848 05 01 1897 07 07 1910 S A GIFFIN
    050848 08 20 1910 04 30 1912 O H WANGELIN
    050848 05 01 1912 02 28 1913 J A HUNTER & C E CUMMINGS
    050848 03 01 1913 08 31 1913 J A HUNTER & C E CUMMINGS
    050848 09 01 1913 05 31 1936 J A HUNTER & C E CUMMINGS
    050848 06 01 1936 09 30 1937 S L SIMMERING
    050848 10 01 1937 10 28 1937 S L SIMMERING
    050848 10 29 1937 07 20 1947 H A HOFFMEISTER
    050848 07 21 1947 12 31 1948 E A JOHNSON

    You might want to ask noaa what happened.

  175. boballab (07:39:30) :

    Oh, one other thing: Just because a station ‘officially’ closes down or is no longer included in the Global Temp Models does not mean the town no longer takes it’s temperature. Check the Boulder, CO newspapers.
    It’s a lot of work to do, but one can be quite surprised at what one finds out.
    Monkeybusiness, monkeyfingers, monkeymess.

  176. Tom Moriarty (09:19:01) :

    We were trick or treating on the west side of Boulder around 2002 in hurricane force winds at 75mph. There was also a large brush fire that night. Boulder normally does get Chinooks several times a winter, though sadly none this year. Fort Collins also gets Chinooks, but not as strong.

    But the important point is that we are measuring relative changes at each station, not the absolute difference between stations. Downtown Fort Collins has a strong UHI component which is very apparent on my bicycle thermometer. During windy days, it disappears.

    Last night I posted a real time temperature stations link to Weather Underground, showing a strong UHI effect across Fort Collins. 15 minutes later the wind picked up and the temperatures leveled.

  177. Steve Goddard (08:55:25) :

    Obviously this is off-topic (OT) at this point, but your favorite ride is pretty much the same as the ride I mentioned in reverse. We start at Edora Park, take the Poudre trail all the way to LaPorte and then continue onto Bellevue. We then head back south and return on the Spring Creek trail (making a pit stop at Dairy Queen). I think it’s ~25 miles and would make a nice marathon course. :-D

    -Scott

  178. rbateman (10:13:04) :

    Thats what I mean they have a nasty habit of using things without being up front about it. Example was that Temple Tx station which you can look up on surfacestations. John Slayton did a follow up on it in 2003 and talked to the manager of the waste treament plant and confirmed it was shut down, but you wouldn’t know that by just looking at the data or using the USHCN plotting tool that Steve used. You got to jump through hoops like I did with that one by going over to the NWS site and finding out there was a NWS automated system at the regional airport just outside of town.

  179. J.Peden (22:43:52) :
    Anu (10:36:08) :

    But, Anu, given your own fear of the alleged CO2AGW disaster, I ask you again, what are you personally doing in terms of your own lifestyle to avert this alleged disaster? Since the alleged CO2AGW disaster is your own strong belief, surely you are obligated to take some very radical action to decrease your own “carbon footprint”?
    ———-
    What makes you think it will be a disaster ?
    I think there is still enough time for enough people to figure out what is going on to mount an effective response – I think summertime ice-free Arctic sea ice will be an “aha” moment for many of the scientifically slow. AGW is a very slow moving problem – to think it has stopped is an error, but I’ve seen what 100’s of millions of people can do when mobilized.

    Is buying a Prius “radical” in your circle of friends ? I’ve done that, years ago. It doubled my MPG. I use CFL and some LED’s, some solar power, but I have no delusion about singlehandedly changing the course of history. I support, in the marketplace, technologies I would like to see further developed – for instance, I have been looking into the new Chevy Volt car. Lithium-ion batteries will soon allow very interesting hybrid and electric cars, and as I’ve said elsewhere on this site, things like wind, solar and nuclear power can quickly ramp up and supply a substantial part of American electricity.
    I think nuclear fusion R&D is underfunded – is that “radical” ?

    Better living through technology.
    “Life’s Good” as the Korean chaebol LG says.

  180. Well, to drag things back to the topic of this thread, I have shown that there is a 0.6°C step change anomaly in January 1942.

    I have also shown what the temperature difference between the two cities looks like once the anomaly is removed. There is a surprisingly constant warming of Ft. Collins with respect to Boulder of ~ 0.2°C/decade, which has been present for over a century.

    So my question is … to what can we ascribe this differential warming?

    This is why I love climate science … there are so many unanswered questions.

    w.

  181. Willis,

    I can tell you what has caused the warming since 1970. Fort Collins has grown rapidly and has craated an Urban Heat Island. The State Climatologist who manages the station agrees. The thermometer on my bicycle agrees.

    Look closer at this graph. Boulder and Fort Collins tracked each other quite closely until about 1970.
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_467qdth7xf7

    There really isn’t any mystery, other than you claiming to remove a discontinuity without a physical explanation for the cause.

  182. Scott,

    When we go your direction, we always catch the wind in our faces going south on Overland!

  183. George E. Smith (09:05:05) :

    Well now you have me thoroughly confused.
    ———-
    Yes, I can tell.


    Look into “the Pentagon Papers”, “whistleblower”, and “Daniel Ellsberg”.

    Are you suggesting that Phil Jones or some other insider accidentally zipped up more than 1000 emails and 3000 other documents not belonging to them, put them up on an FTP server in Tomsk, Russia for ‘safekeeping’, and also hacked into the RealClimate site (using a proxy server to appear to be in Turkey) and tried to put another copy there for ‘safekeeping’ and then used a proxy server to appear to be from Saudi Arabia while telling the climate-skeptic blog The Air Vent to go grab the zipped file because these documents are “too important to be kept under wraps” ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    Yes, you are thoroughly confused.

    The UEA described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach. The criminal was either motivated by money, or conviction.
    If conviction, they would be a “whistleblower” and publicly state why it was so important to release stolen documents (again, research “Daniel Ellsberg”).
    If a common criminal, they would lay low and enjoy the money they made.

    I haven’t heard any whistleblower come forward, have you ?

  184. Anu (13:06:13):

    “I haven’t heard any whistleblower come forward, have you?”

    Nope. But Phil Jones – CRU’s boss – is out of a job. And it’s not because he was being too ethical.

    So quit using your misdirection, and explain why the alarmist crowd is so corrupt.

  185. Smokey (13:13:29) :
    You are obviously desperate for a response after a week, and although vastly ignorant about AGW and other matters, you are not much worse than many I’ve seen here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
    Phil Jones is not out of a job; he’s still on the Academic Staff of CRU, as he temporarily steps aside as Director. There is an “Acting Director”, Prof. Liss, as the CRU goes along with the politically motivated investigation.

    When people are found to have committed crimes or professional misconduct, they are fired:
    http://gothamist.com/2010/02/15/new_york_times_reporter_fired_for_p.php
    Care to explain why Phil Jones is still on academic staff ?

    “Misdirection” is another word for your own confusion as to facts.

  186. Anu (13:33:51),

    So, Phil Jones, head of CRU, was not pushed out of his job? Is that what you’re telling us?

    Who are you trying to kid?

    Next thing you’ll be telling us is that CRU didn’t fabricate entire temperature data sets.

  187. Steve Goddard (12:48:15) : edit

    Willis,

    I can tell you what has caused the warming since 1970. Fort Collins has grown rapidly and has craated an Urban Heat Island. The State Climatologist who manages the station agrees. The thermometer on my bicycle agrees.

    Look closer at this graph. Boulder and Fort Collins tracked each other quite closely until about 1970.
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_467qdth7xf7

    There really isn’t any mystery, other than you claiming to remove a discontinuity without a physical explanation for the cause.

    Steve, I can only invite you to do the math. Assuming trends from eyeballing a graph is not how these things are determined. Here’s the procedure.

    Go get the monthly GISS data for Fort Collins and Boulder. Subtract Boulder from Fort Collins.

    Then take the trend of the difference (Ft. Collins – Boulder) for the following intervals:

    1897-December 1941
    February 1942 – present
    February 1942 – 1970
    1970 – present

    I get ~ 0.2°C per decade for all four. Let us know your results and we can settle this once and for all.

    Finally, I have no problem with removing a discontinuity which I can prove mathematically to exist. No, I don’t know why it is there … but the math proves that it is there, and allows us to calculate the size of the discontinuity.

    However, the procedure I propose immediately above doesn’t depend on removing a discontinuity. It shows that the trend is not just 1970-present, it exists throughout the dataset.

    I await your reply.

    w.

  188. Willis Eschenbach (14:11:21) :

    Like I said in my first post: good but too vague. When you get down to the details of doing a comparison ( correlation, comparing trends) you find out just how deceiving the eye is.

    Steve

  189. Willis,

    Without a physical explanation for the discontinuity there isn’t any way to make an estimate of the required mathematical fix. For all we know, it could be a homogeneity adjustment between sites. Maybe the Boulder site moved for a few decades? The only safe way to handle it without knowing the details is to throw the data out during that time period. The difference might have been increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. I don’t trust the data to any degree of precision between 1924 and (at least) 1950 from looking at that graph.

  190. Sorry, meant to say I don’t trust the data between 1942 and 1970.

    However, there is a clean break upwards around 1970.
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_465qwp7dgc7

    You said “Assuming trends from eyeballing a graph is not how these things are determined. ”

    Quite often that procedure is completely adequate, and is much safer than blindly applying a mathematical correction without any physical basis to justify it. The tone of your remark is quite authoritarian, like I would expect from Gavin or Tamino.

  191. Another close by

    http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/VegNet/coagmet/WSPICS/FTC03IMAGES.html

    http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/VegNet/coagmet/WSPICS/ALT01IMAGES.html

    The data is there to do some comparisons with data that doesnt make it into USHCN. rural data less than 1200km away ( hehe)

    http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/VegNet/coagmet/WSPICS/LCN01IMAGES.html

    http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/VegNet/coagmet/WSPICS/FTL01IMAGES.html

    U want to look at RURAL trends versus URBAN trends.

    there are plenty of of these in the same area. Yes the weather is different for them. But take the rural stations. Look at the correlations month to month. Look at all the trends. you could even average the rural.
    That gives you a “climate” trend for the time period. If the rural trend is
    ZERO and the trend at boulder and fort collins is positive, then you have
    some sense of the UHI. looks like you have 10+ years of data.

    I’ve done the same thing in california using the ag system.

    One thing is sure: the ag system is held to close examination. Crops depend on it.

    have a look

  192. Steve Goddard (14:18:59)

    Willis,

    Without a physical explanation for the discontinuity there isn’t any way to make an estimate of the required mathematical fix. For all we know, it could be a homogeneity adjustment between sites. Maybe the Boulder site moved for a few decades? The only safe way to handle it without knowing the details is to throw the data out during that time period. The difference might have been increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. I don’t trust the data to any degree of precision between 1924 and (at least) 1950 from looking at that graph.

    Do the math. Calculate the trends. You complain about me removing a mathematically demonstrable single month step change, yet you “don’t trust” and want to throw out the data from 1924 to 1950 based on your intuition? Are you a scientist, or not?

    There is a recognized mathematical procedure to determine discontinuities in difference datasets (e.g Ft. Collins minus Boulder). I described it above. There is a more detailed description here. If you use it you will see that there is only one discontinuity in the dataset, in January 1942.

    DO THE MATH. Calculate the trends. Identify the discontinuity. Report the results.

    I await your response.

  193. Wllis, to demonstrate the fallacy in your mathematics, I took a simple physical model and replotted below, which made the trend disappear prior to 1965

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=5&v=1268434079371

    I assumed that there was a movement of the Boulder station to a colder location from 1942 to 1953, and added 0.7 degrees onto the delta for those years. Presto, your trend disappears. You can’t do math tricks like you did without a physical basis.

  194. @ Willis
    Sorry, at this point I have to side with SG here. Given the procedure you’ve described, even if there was no discontinuity in the time series one of those few hundred combined RSS values is going to be the smallest. Apologies if you’ve already provided this info, but one of the key bits of information is how much smaller that combined RSS is compared to all of the others and whether it’s unusally small compared to what you’d expect if there was no discontinuity in the time series. What would also be interesting is looking at what dates rank 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc smallest. If the top15 or 20 are all some time around 1942 that would strengthen an argument that perhaps something unusual happended around about then. But if they’re spread across the date range that would weaken the argument.

    If we look for something hard enough, we’re going to find it even if it’s not there. It’s kind of similar to the multiple testing problem in statistics. If we analyse 20 data sets that truely have no systematic trend in them, and testing for a trend using a statistical hypothesis test with a type I error rate of 5%, then we’re going to find a ‘significant’ trend in 1 of those 20 data sets on average, even though it’s not really there. This is why we have things like Bonferroni adjustments.

  195. Something to consider: both Boulder and Fort Collins are college towns and the student populations are included in the cities’ population counts. (At least I’m sure that’s true of Boulder, am assuming it’s true of Ft. Collins too.) Boulder has about 26K undergraduates and Fort Collins about 20K. (I didn’t see info on graduate populations.) Most students leave town during the summer months, as well as Christmas break, so the UHI effect may be diminished during then. Boulder has a higher percentage of its population being students (over 25%) than Fort Collins (about 15%) which could impact the differences between them in terms of UHI.

  196. The point is Willis, that you made an assumption of a physical model (a one time shift) which has no basis to back it up. I chose a different arbitrary physical model (no less valid than yours) and the trend from 1930-1965 completely disappears. Without more information we can’t know how to correct the data. That is why I choose to throw it away.

    I do however believe that Fort Collins has seen 2+ degrees of UHI warming, because I can and do measure it riding in and out of the city center and campus.

    BTW – I didn’t describe my model correctly before. I meant to say that the model was based on the idea that Boulder station moved to a 0.7 degree warmer spot from 1942-1953.

  197. Steve, I ask again that you calculate the following trends:

    1897-December 1941
    February 1942 – present
    February 1942 – 1970
    1970 – present

    Those require no “assumption of a physical model”. They do not require that we change any data. They are just simple measurements of the existing data. DO THE MATH and report back on what you find.

    You keep insisting that we should make judgements based on eyeballing a graph, and assume arbitrary models. Science doesn’t work that way.

    For example, I have given a mathematical method that clearly identifies a discontinuity. It is a single-step discontinuity in January 1942. Therefore, my model is definitely NOT a “model … which has no basis to back it up” as you claim. It has a statistically significant mathematical calculation which identifies the discontinuity.

    You, on the other hand, pick a totally arbitrary model. If you can show mathematically that there is a discontinuit in 1942 and again in 1953, then fine, your model deserves consideration. Do you have such mathematical evidence???

    The reality is, if you increase the values from 1942 to 1953, mathematical analysis no longer finds a discontinuity in 1942 … but now it finds one in 1953. So your arbitrary model is mathematically demonstrably false. DO THE MATH.

    So far, all you’ve given us is handwaving. But hey, let’s assume that your model is correct. Calculate the after-your-changes trend from 1953-1970, and 1970 to the present and report your findings … your claim that the trend started in 1970 doesn’t pass examination.

  198. Willis,

    You are assuming a particular physical model. You are assuming that there was a one time shift in 1942 were no important changes after 1942. I chose a different model (two shifts) and clearly demonstrated that the trends you claim disappear.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=5&v=1268434079371

    Your interpretation, whether you recognize it or not, is based on a model you have chosen to believe – i.e. a one time shift in the data in 1942.

  199. MinB (15:59:30) :,

    The disappearance of students in the summer doesn’t change the amount of streets and buildings, and is probably more than compensated by increased driving and number of tourists.

  200. Smokey (14:11:05) :

    You seem to be following Dr. Jones quite closely.
    Let me know if they ever fire him.
    Or reinstate him as Director.

  201. Willis Eschenbach (01:27:43) :

    Hey Willis, I like your graphs! What are you using to produce them? Also curious on the package you are using for series analysis, it must have gaussian smoothing builtin, do you mind listing that also?

    I am going to do some deep analysis and really don’t want to write it in C, Cpp, Cs from scratch though I can if necessary. Have most of the code from a equitites charting program I wrote years ago.

  202. D MacKenzie (15:59:08) : edit

    @ Willis
    Sorry, at this point I have to side with SG here. Given the procedure you’ve described, even if there was no discontinuity in the time series one of those few hundred combined RSS values is going to be the smallest. Apologies if you’ve already provided this info, but one of the key bits of information is how much smaller that combined RSS is compared to all of the others and whether it’s unusally small compared to what you’d expect if there was no discontinuity in the time series. What would also be interesting is looking at what dates rank 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc smallest. If the top15 or 20 are all some time around 1942 that would strengthen an argument that perhaps something unusual happended around about then. But if they’re spread across the date range that would weaken the argument.

    If you are still asking for information, and you haven’t done the math yourself, why on earth would you be siding with one side or the other?

    In any case, here’s the results of my analysis. FIrst, here’s the residual analysis of the original data:


    <img

    Figure W4. Residual analysis of Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperature data, using the procedure described here.

    As you can see, there is a single significant discontinuity in January of 1942. Next, here is the result of Steve’s proposed adjustment, adding 0.7°C from 1942 to 1953:

    Figure W5. Residual analysis of Steve Goddard’s proposed adjustment to the Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperature data, using the same procedure.

    As I mentioned above, all that this does is displace the discontinuity from 1942 to 1953. Finally, here is the result of my adjustment, adding 0.6°C from 1942 to the end of the record:

    Figure W6. Residual analysis of my proposed adjustment to the Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperature data, using the same procedure.

    This reduces the total sum of the residuals, and does not leave any obvious discontinuities. (A true discontinuity shows up as a deep “V” shaped drop in the values, as shown in the above graphs)

    Like I said, it is necessary to do the math. You can’t just propose a random adjustment as Steve has done. You need to use math to find the discontinuity, and to estimate the size, and to check the results of your adjustment.

    Finally, the existence of the discontinuity in January 1942 is confirmed by looking at the trends for all of the data except for that date. Take a look at the trends:

    1897-December 1941
    February 1942 – present
    February 1942 – 1970
    1970 – present

    I get ~ 0.2 for all of those.

    w.

  203. Willis,

    Try the same analysis where you add 0.7 on to Fort Collins from 1942-1953, instead of subtracting from Boulder.

    Please post your code.

  204. Willis Eschenbach (17:23:09) :

    Nice graphics.
    Could you explain how you included them in a comment ? I’ve seen the occasional image or video embedded on WUWT, but I would like to know how the few people like yourself are doing so.

  205. Steve Goddard (17:38:14)

    Willis,

    Try the same analysis where you add 0.7 on to Fort Collins from 1942-1953, instead of subtracting from Boulder.

    Please post your code.

    Steve, I am analyzing the difference between Fort Collins and Boulder, which is:

    Diff = FC – B

    For the change, I used

    Diff = FC – (B-0.7°)

    You propose using

    Diff = (FC + 0.7°) – B

    Expand both terms, and tell me what you get …

  206. Steve Goddard (17:48:05)

    Willis,

    You are attempting to fit a straight line, because that is the model you want to see. Looking at the graph, it was obvious that shifting Fort Collins upwards by 0.7 degrees in 1942 would create a straight line.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268444596121

    In my model, it is not a straight line and it obviously won’t fit your linear regression.

    So we’re back to “just look at the graph” again? Could you determine that the step discontinuity was in January 1942 by just looking at the graph?

    Steve, forget about discontinuities for a moment. Using the original Ft. Collins minus Boulder data, I get the following trends:

    February 1942 – present: ~ 0.2
    February 1942 – 1970: ~ 0.2
    1970 – present: ~ 0.2

    You have claimed that the temperature increase began in 1970 … I’m sure you see the problem. How do you explain that?

  207. Willis Eschenbach (17:23:09)
    “If you are still asking for information, and you haven’t done the math yourself, why on earth would you be siding with one side or the other?”

    Well, sitting in a hotel room in Malaysia doing some other work I didn’t have the time to recreate your analysis. Apologies if I unintendly got offside with you, I was just noting that given the evidence that had been presented so far, I wasn’t convinced that you hadn’t just found a random result. Thanks for posting the additional information, that provides a lot of additional important detail.

  208. wayne (17:20:45)

    Willis Eschenbach (01:27:43) :

    Hey Willis, I like your graphs! What are you using to produce them? Also curious on the package you are using for series analysis, it must have gaussian smoothing builtin, do you mind listing that also?

    I work on a Mac, and I use Excel for the graphs. I take screen shots with SnapZPro. I wrote my own Excel gaussian function.

    I am going to do some deep analysis and really don’t want to write it in C, Cpp, Cs from scratch though I can if necessary. Have most of the code from a equitites charting program I wrote years ago.

    I can write C, but I don’t use it anymore. I now use R, it’s much more suited for analyzing blocks of data.

    w.

  209. Willis Eschenbach (19:26:36) :

    R, I suspected. Had already downloaded it but just never installed it. Thanks. However, I can seem to get Excel to have both left and right scales. Is that a Mac feature? I’m on XP Excel 2003, that might be the difference, the 2003.

  210. Willis,

    The slope from 1920-1940 is 0.007
    The slope from 1895-1940 is 0.029
    The slope from 1902-1940 is 0.040

    You can get what ever slope you want by cherry picking the start date on the section prior to the discontinuity.

    Again, please post your code.

  211. Willis,

    Thanks for getting me looking closer at the whole 1895-2008 record. Looking at the early years, it is clear that the other half of the discontinuity is before 1941(not after) in 1920
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268456429186

    I tried subtracting 0.7 from all years from 1920-1941 and came up with a graph that makes sense.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=6&v=1268456562370

    I still have no idea what it is you are doing with your analysis. How you got a straight line in a linear analysis of this mess looks like black magic to me.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268456429186

  212. Steve Goddard (21:05:09)

    Willis,

    Thanks for getting me looking closer at the whole 1895-2008 record. Looking at the early years, it is clear that the other half of the discontinuity is before 1941(not after) in 1920
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268456429186

    I tried subtracting 0.7 from all years from 1920-1941 and came up with a graph that makes sense.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=6&v=1268456562370

    I still have no idea what it is you are doing with your analysis. How you got a straight line in a linear analysis of this mess looks like black magic to me.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=

    Steve, the whole record is interesting. However, I don’t find a break in 1920. See my residual analysis Figure W6 here. Once the 1941 discontinuity (a one-month step change of 0.6°C) is removed, the residual analysis does not show any other discontinuities in the record. So while you can claim that there is a 1920 discontinuity, the residual analysis disagrees. A discontinuity shows up as a deep “V”, not a single low value.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say “I still have no idea what it is you are doing with your analysis.” Do you mean the residual analysis? If so, I’m happy to explain it further. Let me know.

    w.

  213. Willis,

    No need to explain. Please just post your code so that I can see how your graph was generated and attempt to reproduce it.

  214. Steve Goddard (20:07:47)

    Willis,

    The slope from 1920-1940 is 0.007
    The slope from 1895-1940 is 0.029
    The slope from 1902-1940 is 0.040

    You can get what ever slope you want by cherry picking the start date on the section prior to the discontinuity.

    Again, please post your code.

    As I said before, I am working in Excel, so there is no code.

    Steve, you keep bringing up irrelevant points, like the trends prior to the 1942 discontinuity. What does that have to do with your claim about alleged changes in the latter half of the 20th century?

    Next, you imagine some model of adding 0.7 to the years 1942-1953. I show that all that does is create a new discontinuity … and you ignore that. I show mathematically that there is a single anomaly in January 1942, and you call it arbitrary. So let’s go back to the basics.

    You have claimed that the increase in Fort Collins – Boulder is due to the increase in Ft. Collins population post 1970. You say:

    Until the mid-1960s, NCDC temperatures in the two cities tracked each other quite closely …

    I asked you explain why, if that is the case, the trend 1942-1970 is the same as the post 1970 trend.

    Or you could pick 1965. Trend 1942-1965 is 0.19, same as 1942-1970.

    Trend 1965-present is 0.19, trend 1970 to present is 0.20

    So no, Steve, the temperature did not “track each other quite closely until the mid-1960s” as you claim. They diverged at the same rate 1942-1965 as they did after 1965.

    Where is the break that you claim to see in the data? I see no change in the divergence of the two datasets anywhere around the 1960s. If you want to postulate a reason that the pre 1965-70 data is different from the post 1965-70 data, first you have to show that they are different. I have shown that they are not different in several ways: by trends in this post, and by a graphic representation here. So where is the change in the trend that you are trying to explain via population?

    Answer that question, and we’ll go forward from there.

  215. wayne (19:32:35) : edit

    Willis Eschenbach (19:26:36) :

    R, I suspected. Had already downloaded it but just never installed it. Thanks. However, I can seem to get Excel to have both left and right scales. Is that a Mac feature? I’m on XP Excel 2003, that might be the difference, the 2003.

    I think it’s in XP 2003. Double-click on the line you want on a different axis, and click on the “Axis” tab.

  216. Willis,

    Spreadsheets use code functions very similar to other programming languages. Please make your spreadsheet available online. Why are you avoiding doing this?

  217. I’m out of town for a few days, but here are my final thoughts.

    1. The discontinuity is likely to due to some sort of data collection issue at one of the sites between 1920 and 1941 (station move, TOBS, etc) The problem can be seen in the full data set.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268485447023

    When all the years between 1929 and 1941 are reduced 0.7 degrees, the full record graph makes sense from a physical point of view.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=6&v=1268485011450

    2. The divergence started in the mid-1940s when populations started to grow rapidly in both cities. It appears that the Ft. Collins station was affected more by growth than Boulder. As Tom Moriarty has astutely noticed, the current Boulder site is surrounded by open space.

    3. The correct way to fix the discontinuity is by subtracting from 1920-1941, rather than adding after 1941 – an adjustment for which there is no theoretical basis.

  218. Willis,

    One last item. The slope from 1920-1941 is 0.007. There was no upwards trend before 1942.

  219. Is there a Climategate arm to Norway, too?

    Norwegian cooler stations skipped, says Tom Segalstad;

    Excerp from the newspaper article;

    “The panel’s work (IPCC) can not be taken seriously until they change their objects clause, says Segalstad.

    He served as an expert by reading the climate panel’s third report which was published in 2001. Then he pointed out that several monitoring stations in Norway was taken out from the scientific basis. Three of the four monitoring stations, which had been in the Second Assessment Report, was now gone. These measurement stations showed that temperature had fallen, not risen so the main conclusion of the second major report said.”

    Here;
    (Its a google translation, so…..but I think one can decode the meaning of it);

    http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bt.no%2Fnyheter%2Fklima%2FIkke-alle-vil-vaere-med-i-klimapanel-1046688.html

    Same tactics as elsewere?

  220. I strongly agree with Goddard and Watts that the UHI effect is a factor that is underrated, and that there is a remakable correlation between population rates and temperature rates of Boulder and Fort Collins.

    I have examined temperature series (NASA/GISS) of Fort Collins and the rural station Chugwater, which is in Wyoming, 41.76N, 104.82W; 1617 m, about 78 miles N of Fort Collins. Fort Collins is 1525 m above sea level, Chugwater 1617m above sea level.

    Here are the temperature series NASA/GISS from both staions from 1950-2009:

    And here is the difference between Fort Collins and Chugwater:

    There is hardly any trend visible. Can anyone explain this? Is there another factor that is overlooked?

  221. Steve Goddard (23:03:13) : edit

    Willis,

    Spreadsheets use code functions very similar to other programming languages. Please make your spreadsheet available online. Why are you avoiding doing this?

    Avoiding doing this? You asked for my code. I said I don’t have code, it’s a spreadsheet. You asked more my code again. I said again, I don’t have code, it’s a spreadsheet.

    Now you ask for my spreadsheet, and insult me with a scurrilous accusation of bad faith that I am avoiding posting it.

    That’s not nice. I have been operating in good faith all along. You have refused to answer any of my questions. Now you want to attack my actions, as though I were your servant and I’m avoiding your orders.

    You made the claim, which I see you are now changing the goal posts on. You started by saying that the reason for the difference in the temperature records post 1970s was that Ft. Collins grew faster than Boulder. That was your hypothesis. I said it was not true.

    I pointed out that

    a) up until 1970 Boulder grew faster than Fort Collins, and

    b) there was no change in the Ft. Collins minus Boulder trend anywhere in the post-1942 record.

    Since there was no change in the trend, there was nothing to explain, so your hypothesis was false on the face of it. You had invented a reason to explain a non-existent phenomenon.

    I invited you, a number of times, to calculate and report on the following trends:

    1897-December 1941
    February 1942 – present
    February 1942 – 1970
    1970 – present

    I get ~ 0.2 for all of those. That alone means that your hypothesis is nonsense.

    You seem to think these are randomly chosen dates to favor a point of view. They are from the start of the dataset to the discontinuity, from after the discontinuity to your 1970 date, from 1970 to the end of the dataset, and from the discontinuity to the end of the dataset.

    Instead of reporting those trends, instead of just admitting your hypothesis was wrong and moving on, you want to argue about trivialities, and make up other ways to adjust the data without mathematical support, and waffle and wave your hands, and attack me for not knowing that when you say “post your code” you have some other meaning entirely.

    So no, I won’t post my spreadsheet. It only concerns my analysis of the discontinuity, which I’m sorry I ever mentioned. The discontinuity is immaterial to the question of whether your hypothesis is correct.

    Your hypothesis is wrong. If someone wants my spreadsheet, email me, I’m more than happy to share it, that’s not the issue. But I’m not happy to have you use it to distract people from the fact that your hypothesis was incorrect.

    Once you accept the fact that your first explanation was wrong, however, you would notice that you have lit upon a fascinating question. Because once the one-month step-change discontinuity in the difference dataset is corrected, we see that the trends of the two cities have diverged at a remarkably constant rate for the last century. I show this above.

    This is a curious and interesting finding. I don’t know why this should be, but it certainly bears further investigation.

  222. Steve Goddard (05:35:57) : edit

    Willis,

    One last item. The slope from 1920-1941 is 0.007. There was no upwards trend before 1942.

    You’re starting to hallucinate. Look at the chart here. From the start of the dataset in 1897 to 1941, temperatures went up by about a degree. A full degree upwards in about fifty years, how is that “no upwards trend before 1942”.

    As shown by the graph, the trend from the 1920-1941 was smaller than the overall trend. But there is a very clear upward trend of 0.2°C/decade from the start of the dataset to 1941, and the 1920-1941 trend was still upwards.

  223. Steve Goddard (05:05:40)

    I’m out of town for a few days, but here are my final thoughts.

    1. The discontinuity is likely to due to some sort of data collection issue at one of the sites between 1920 and 1941 (station move, TOBS, etc) The problem can be seen in the full data set.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268485447023

    I say again. You can’t just eyeball a dataset and say “there’s a discontinuity”. There are recognized mathematical procedures to find them, one of which I detailed above. Using the procedure, we don’t have to handwave and say “between 1920 and 1941”. The procedure identifies the exact month of the discontinuity, January 1942.

    When all the years between 1929 and 1941 are reduced 0.7 degrees, the full record graph makes sense from a physical point of view.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=6&v=1268485011450

    Just like your claim about doing the same thing to the period 1942-1953, all this does is displace the discontinuity. In this case, rather than displace it to to 1953, it displaces it to 1929.

    Steve, the math is clear. There is one and only one discontinuity in the Ft. Collins minus Boulder dataset. You keep claiming there are two … if you believe that, you must show it mathematically, not just squint at the graphs and make declarations.

    2. The divergence started in the mid-1940s when populations started to grow rapidly in both cities. It appears that the Ft. Collins station was affected more by growth than Boulder. As Tom Moriarty has astutely noticed, the current Boulder site is surrounded by open space.

    We’ve gone over this many times. The divergence has been there since the records began in the late 1800’s. This is visible even in the uncorrected dataset. You keep repeating this claim as if repetition would make it true, but we can look at the graph. You’re like Groucho Marx saying “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

    3. The correct way to fix the discontinuity is by subtracting from 1920-1941, rather than adding after 1941 – an adjustment for which there is no theoretical basis.

    For our purposes, it doesn’t matter whether you add or subtract, because it makes no difference to the resulting trends. At present there is no theoretical basis favoring either, because we don’t know which dataset contains the error.

  224. Willis Eschenbach (22:10:56) :
    I think it’s in XP 2003. Double-click on the line you want on a different axis, and click on the “Axis” tab.

    Willis, I’m indebted! After many years I had never stumbled across that simple tie. On the other hand, I have always been a rather light user of Excel, usually programming from the ground up, including charting. Thanks again!

  225. wayne (17:10:58)

    Willis Eschenbach (22:10:56) :

    I think it’s in XP 2003. Double-click on the line you want on a different axis, and click on the “Axis” tab.

    Willis, I’m indebted! After many years I had never stumbled across that simple tie. On the other hand, I have always been a rather light user of Excel, usually programming from the ground up, including charting. Thanks again!

    After twenty five years or so of driving Excel, and having written some fairly outrageous macros and systems, I know most of its foibles.

    Speaking of Excel, here’s how I do the residual analysis to find the discontinuity:

    Figure W7. Formula used to analyze the residuals to determine discontinuities in temperature difference datasets (e.g Ft. Collins minus Boulder)

    The LINEST function with the variable set to TRUE (note the two commas) gives a five row by two column matrix containing the analysis statistics. The INDEX(somerange,5,2) function selects the residual sum of squares, which is in row 5 column 2 of what the LINEST function returns.

    Note that the first function is anchored (with the dollar sign $) to the start of the dataset, and the second one is anchored to the end. Also note that the function leaves out the data point for the month being calculated.

    To use this, you’ll need to remove the blanks from the dataset. The Excel LINEST function is dumb, it chokes on blanks. So just cut out the lines (both date and missing difference data) where one dataset or the other is missing temperature data and therefore the difference is also missing data. Makes no difference to the analysis.

    Like I said, this is peripheral to the discussion of when the divergence began between Ft. Collins and Boulder, but it is a useful tool.

    Other Excel questions related to analysis and display of temperature datasets? I’m happy to answer them.

    w.

  226. Henry chance (10:09:04) :

    Boulder is morally superior. They have removed autos from downtown and other endeavors. The geography is also different. Boulder is adjacent to the slopes and mountains and Fort Collins is 15 miles east of the mountains.

    I live in Boulder. It definitely sees itself as “morally superior” and “cool”. Hey, check out the Tesla dealership on the West end of the downtown mall sometime.

    In reality Boulder lost its “coolness” to outsiders around 2001.

    I can tell you Boulder has not removed autos from downtown. True, they converted part of it to a pedestrian mall in the mid-1970s, but if you consider the whole downtown area, no, there are still cars there. They make it very difficult for too many autos to park, though.

    As to the population, I recall it getting up to 96,000 or 98,000 in the early part of this decade and then declining for the last several years to its current level.

  227. Meant to also say, there is definitely a UHI in Boulder. I remember one really hot summer day in the late 1990s the power grid for the whole western part of the U.S. went down for a day (a power overload happened at a hydroelectric plant in CA, as I recall, which caused a cascade). Power was knocked out at my apartment in town, and it was stifling hot. A friend of mine lived in the countryside, 3 miles outside of the city limits. She had electricity. So I drove out there. Once I got out of my car I could immediately feel the difference. It was perceptibly cooler outdoors there than it was outside in town. This was before I had about the idea of UHI.

  228. Willis Eschenbach (20:57:19) :
    Other Excel questions related to analysis and display of temperature datasets? I’m happy to answer them.

    Thank you Willis. I won’t both you at the moment for more, your offer is generous, you have give me enough to absorb for a while (but I might take you up on that later if really get stuck).

    Another thing I just learned from you is that returned matrices don’t have to actually exist on the spreadsheet. I didn’t know that either! That is why I have had a bit of trouble when using the higher level functions that return a matrix. I have also written Basic macros and functions but this is new to me.

    I am too much a system level programmer. I have programmed things like Excel itself, DirectX itself, I have written a photo manipulation package back in the 90’s similar to PhotoShop. When I hit a problem I deem to deep for Excel I have tended to just jump to a language and write the whole thing from the bottom up, write back to CSV, and import that to Excel. That might take an hour or so but from that point on I never hit limits. Weird, right. My mind is usually sits on the lower levels of software. It has its pluses and minuses. But, that is reinventing the wheel, right, so I greatly appreciate you tips, I will use them! I will take a look at R also.

    I see what you are doing on Steve’s Boulder – Ft. Collins data. So ~1940 the difference in the x-aligned trend points before and after jump off the chart! That is the discontinuity. I am going to take some time to absorb my new Excel skills, thank again!

  229. Willis Eschenbach (20:57:19) :

    Just re-read my reply and I better rephrase
    “things like Excel itself, DirectX itself”
    to
    “things similar to Excel itself, similar to DirectX itself”
    :-) No, I haven’t worked for Microsoft!

  230. Willis,

    Your claimed pre-1941 trend of 0.20 has an r^2 of less than 0.02. It has zero statistical significance.

    You need to put your entire spreadsheet online, not post images of it. You harshly criticize Jones and Mann for the same behaviour.

    There are many kinds of discontinuities which you seem to be unaware of. One example (of many) would be a tree growing and gradually shading the screen over a period of months. This would not show up as a single month discontinuity, yet it has the same effect over a year. You can not discover the history of the Boulder station from te simple statistical analysis you are attempting.

  231. Steve Goddard (00:28:16), welcome back. You say:

    Willis,

    Your claimed pre-1941 trend of 0.20 has an r^2 of less than 0.02. It has zero statistical significance.

    Say what???

    The r^2 value does not measure the statistical significance of a trend. Statistical significance is calculated by dividing the trend value (0.019°C/yr 1897-1941) by the error in the trend line (0.003°C/year). This gives 5.4.

    To determine if the 5.4 is significant, you must perform a “T-test” for the particular significance level desired. This uses the number of degrees of freedom. If we want 95% significance, and we have in this case 534 degrees of freedom (months of data – 2), the T test gives a value of 2.25. Since 5.4 is greater than 2.25 the trend is indeed significant. The Excel help file explains all of this under the LINEST function, viz:

    Another hypothesis test will determine whether each slope coefficient is useful in estimating the assessed value of an office building in example 3. For example, to test the age coefficient for statistical significance, divide -234.24 (age slope coefficient) by 13.268 (the estimated standard error of age coefficients in cell A15). The following is the t-observed value:

    t = m4 ÷ se4 = -234.24 ÷ 13.268 = -17.7

    If the absolute value of t is sufficiently high, it can be concluded that the slope coefficient is useful in estimating the assessed value of an office building in example 3. The table below shows the absolute values of the 4 t-observed values.

    If you consult a table in a statistics manual, you will find that t-critical, two tailed, with 6 degrees of freedom and Alpha = 0.05 is 2.447. This critical value can also be found using Excel’s TINV function. TINV(0.05,6) = 2.447. Because the absolute value of t, 17.7, is greater than 2.447, age is an important variable when estimating the assessed value of an office building. Each of the other independent variables can be tested for statistical significance in a similar manner.

    You also need to adjust the degrees of freedom for autocorrelation, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. See here for details. The trend is still significant after adjustment for autocorrelation. The number of adjusted degrees of freedom is 253.

    I’m beginning to see why you are having problems with your claims …

    You need to put your entire spreadsheet online, not post images of it. You harshly criticize Jones and Mann for the same behaviour.

    I was trying to encourage you to do the math yourself, but I’m starting to see that may not be possible. In that case, my spreadsheet is here. It depends on an external gaussian averaging function and some other external functions, so parts of it won’t work. What does work should be enough, if not let me know.

    There are many kinds of discontinuities which you seem to be unaware of. One example (of many) would be a tree growing and gradually shading the screen over a period of months. This would not show up as a single month discontinuity, yet it has the same effect over a year. You can not discover the history of the Boulder station from te simple statistical analysis you are attempting.

    I’m not aware of other types of discontinuities? You’ve taken up mind reading? I have discussed a host of different types of discontinuities on WUWT.

    What I said was that you can’t just say, as you have done, ‘let’s add 0.7°C to the period 1942-1953″. You need to have evidence of a discontinuity to remove it. I have given such evidence. I have made no claim that there are not other types of discontinuities in record, there may well be. But until we have evidence of them, we have to use the record as it sits.

  232. Willis,

    You are shouting louder and louder.

    There is very clear evidence of a discontinuity in 1920. Linest from 1895-1919 shows a negative slope. Linest from 1920-1941 shows a zero slope. In 1920, Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperature differences jumped up two degrees in 1920, and then dropped by nearly an equal amount in 1942. It is abundantly clear that there are two discontinuities.
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElxNDA4Vlh2OGhvOUdEX1N0bm1CeWc&oid=2&v=1268855768008

    Your dependence on spreadsheets over observation is not good. The neural network in the human brain is vastly more powerful at identifying patterns than are computers. A baby can easily identify the difference between a man and a woman’s face, but it is an incredibly difficult problem for a computer.

  233. Steve Goddard (12:59:03)

    Willis,

    You are shouting louder and louder.

    There is very clear evidence of a discontinuity in 1920. Linest from 1895-1919 shows a negative slope. Linest from 1920-1941 shows a zero slope. In 1920, Ft. Collins minus Boulder temperature differences jumped up two degrees in 1920, and then dropped by nearly an equal amount in 1942. It is abundantly clear that there are two discontinuities.

    Your dependence on spreadsheets over observation is not good. The neural network in the human brain is vastly more powerful at identifying patterns than are computers. A baby can easily identify the difference between a man and a woman’s face, but it is an incredibly difficult problem for a computer.

    A change in slope doesn’t indicate a discontinuity. Squinting at a graph and mumbling about neural networks doesn’t indicate a discontinuity. That’s why special mathematical methods have been developed to show discontinuities. If we could find them by just looking, there’d be no need for the mathematical methods.

    If you don’t want to use math, fine. But good luck convincing scientists by saying “Look here, the trend changes, my human brain neural network sez it must be a discontinuity, look real close, honest, it’s there …”

    Math says no discontinuity in 1920. I know you don’t like that, but there it is.

  234. Steve Goddard (13:28:36)

    Willis,

    I am glad that you and Leif like your spreadsheet. Nevertheless the entire the 1895-1941 “trend” you claim, occurred during one year (1920) indicating a discontinuity which your spreadsheet missed.

    Trend 1895-1919 (not including 1920) 0.04°C/decade

    Trend 1920-1941 (not including 1920) 0.09°C/decade

    In other words, there is a trend both before and after 1920.

    I’m afraid your eyeball has misled you again. There is a change in the trend in 1920, but a change in the trend != a discontinuity.

    Also, please recall that your claim was that

    The increase in temperatures started around 1970.

    When I showed there was a trend post 1941, your new claim was that there was no trend pre 1941. But please note:

    Your original thesis was that the trend only existed post-1970, and was driven by the differential post-1970 population growth.

    That claim has been resoundingly disproven. We’re now discussing other issues about the temperature record.

  235. Steve Goddard posted this on another thread:

    Steve Goddard (16:45:44) : edit

    Willis,

    I don’t know where you are getting your numbers from. The trend from 1895-1919 is negative -0.0056. The trend from 1920-1941 is 0.0097 . This is nowhere near the 0.20 you originally claimed, or your reduced numbers above.

    You are changing the subject of this discussion, which was the fact that your spreadsheet missed the discontinuity in 1920.

    And I had already agreed that there was probably a post mid-1940s trend, which is when the population started to grow rapidly in Fort Collins – supporting the UHI thesis.

    Well, let’s see. I am getting my numbers from the GISS site here, using the unadjusted figures. They show the trends I gave above, which were:

    Trend 1895-1919 (not including 1920) 0.04°C/decade

    Trend 1921 [wrongly noted above as 1920]-1941 (not including 1920) 0.09°C/decade

    I have posted my spreadsheet, per your request, above. How about you post yours so we can see where the difference lies? We agree on the post 1920 trend, it is just the earlier one that is in question (note that my trends are per decade and yours are per year).

    Perhaps you didn’t start in 1895, perhaps you used annual data rather than monthly data, I don’t know. I just re-ran my numbers ab initio and got the same result.

    Finally, you say:

    The trend from 1895-1919 is negative -0.0056. The trend from 1920-1941 is 0.0097 . This is nowhere near the 0.20 you originally claimed, or your reduced numbers above.

    Since the numbers just above are the first numbers I have given for these particular trends (pre- and post- 1920), I don’t know what you mean by the trend I “originally claimed” for those intervals.

    Is there a discontinuity in 1920? Possibly. All I’m saying is that you have to show that mathematically, you haven’t done that, and a change in trend is not equal to a discontinuity.

    Here’s my data for the period in question, in comma-delimited form for easy import into excel

    Year, Ft. Collins – Boulder Temperature
    1895.04, 0.47
    1895.13, -0.13
    1895.21, 1.27
    1895.29, 0.67
    1895.38, 0.07
    1895.46, 1.07
    1895.54
    1895.63
    1895.71
    1895.79
    1895.88
    1895.96
    1896.04
    1896.13
    1896.21
    1896.29
    1896.38
    1896.46
    1896.54
    1896.63
    1896.71
    1896.79
    1896.88
    1896.96
    1897.04
    1897.13
    1897.21
    1897.29
    1897.38, 1.17
    1897.46, 0.97
    1897.54, -0.03
    1897.63, 0.97
    1897.71, -0.03
    1897.79, 0.07
    1897.88, -1.23
    1897.96, -0.83
    1898.04, -0.83
    1898.13, -0.73
    1898.21, 0.27
    1898.29, 1.07
    1898.38, 1.67
    1898.46, 0.47
    1898.54, 0.37
    1898.63, 0.27
    1898.71, -0.03
    1898.79, 0.47
    1898.88, -1.53
    1898.96, -1.13
    1899.04, -1.63
    1899.13, -2.33
    1899.21, -0.33
    1899.29, -0.23
    1899.38, 0.27
    1899.46, 0.67
    1899.54, 0.87
    1899.63, 0.57
    1899.71, -0.53
    1899.79, -0.23
    1899.88, -1.83
    1899.96, -2.33
    1900.04, -1.33
    1900.13, -2.13
    1900.21, -0.23
    1900.29, 0.37
    1900.38, 0.77
    1900.46, 0.57
    1900.54, 0.47
    1900.63, -0.23
    1900.71, 0.17
    1900.79, -1.83
    1900.88, -1.93
    1900.96, -2.03
    1901.04, -2.43
    1901.13, -1.03
    1901.21, -0.93
    1901.29, 0.17
    1901.38, 0.57
    1901.46, 0.47
    1901.54, 0.57
    1901.63, 0.77
    1901.71, 0.37
    1901.79, -0.33
    1901.88, -2.43
    1901.96, -2.03
    1902.04, -2.53
    1902.13, -1.43
    1902.21, -0.23
    1902.29, 0.17
    1902.38, 0.27
    1902.46, 0.07
    1902.54, 0.17
    1902.63, 0.27
    1902.71, -0.03
    1902.79, -1.43
    1902.88, -1.23
    1902.96, -3.13
    1903.04, -1.43
    1903.13, -2.93
    1903.21, -1.63
    1903.29, 0.37
    1903.38, 0.47
    1903.46, 1.17
    1903.54, 0.57
    1903.63, 0.77
    1903.71, -0.43
    1903.79, -0.73
    1903.88, -1.73
    1903.96, -2.13
    1904.04, -1.43
    1904.13, -1.53
    1904.21, -0.13
    1904.29, 0.17
    1904.38, 1.07
    1904.46, 1.17
    1904.54, 0.87
    1904.63, 0.37
    1904.71, -0.83
    1904.79, -1.33
    1904.88, -2.83
    1904.96, -1.03
    1905.04, -0.53
    1905.13, -1.13
    1905.21, 0.47
    1905.29, 0.17
    1905.38, 1.47
    1905.46, 1.27
    1905.54, 0.87
    1905.63, -0.23
    1905.71, -1.13
    1905.79, -0.63
    1905.88, -1.33
    1905.96, -3.23
    1906.04, -1.83
    1906.13, -1.33
    1906.21, 0.17
    1906.29, 0.57
    1906.38, 0.77
    1906.46, 1.77
    1906.54, 1.17
    1906.63, 1.37
    1906.71, 0.47
    1906.79, -0.53
    1906.88, 0.07
    1906.96, -0.93
    1907.04, -1.93
    1907.13, -1.53
    1907.21, -0.03
    1907.29, -0.13
    1907.38, 1.27
    1907.46, 0.57
    1907.54, 0.87
    1907.63, 0.27
    1907.71, -0.53
    1907.79, 0.17
    1907.88, -1.63
    1907.96, -0.53
    1908.04, -2.33
    1908.13, -1.93
    1908.21, -0.53
    1908.29, -0.43
    1908.38, 0.57
    1908.46, 0.57
    1908.54, 1.17
    1908.63, 0.97
    1908.71, -0.13
    1908.79, 1.07
    1908.88, -1.53
    1908.96, -2.63
    1909.04, -1.73
    1909.13, -0.83
    1909.21, 3.07
    1909.29, 2.17
    1909.38, 0.97
    1909.46, 1.77
    1909.54, 1.87
    1909.63, 1.17
    1909.71, 0.37
    1909.79, 0.07
    1909.88, -0.53
    1909.96, 1.77
    1910.04, -0.33
    1910.13, -0.03
    1910.21, -1.43
    1910.29, -0.23
    1910.38, 1.07
    1910.46, 0.77
    1910.54
    1910.63
    1910.71, 0.47
    1910.79, 0.27
    1910.88, -0.63
    1910.96, -0.73
    1911.04, -1.43
    1911.13, -0.73
    1911.21, -0.13
    1911.29, 0.57
    1911.38, 0.87
    1911.46, 0.07
    1911.54, 0.27
    1911.63, 0.77
    1911.71, -0.73
    1911.79, 0.47
    1911.88, -0.03
    1911.96
    1912.04
    1912.13
    1912.21, -1.53
    1912.29, 0.17
    1912.38, 0.07
    1912.46, 0.07
    1912.54, 0.77
    1912.63, 0.27
    1912.71, -0.13
    1912.79, -0.63
    1912.88, -1.23
    1912.96, -0.53
    1913.04, -1.73
    1913.13, -0.53
    1913.21, 0.07
    1913.29, -0.03
    1913.38, 1.07
    1913.46, 0.47
    1913.54, 0.27
    1913.63, 0.97
    1913.71, 0.07
    1913.79, 0.27
    1913.88, -1.13
    1913.96, -3.23
    1914.04, -2.63
    1914.13, -2.03
    1914.21, -0.53
    1914.29, 0.17
    1914.38, 0.57
    1914.46, -0.73
    1914.54, 0.67
    1914.63, 0.47
    1914.71, -0.63
    1914.79, -0.03
    1914.88, -1.93
    1914.96, 0.37
    1915.04, -1.13
    1915.13, -0.03
    1915.21, 1.27
    1915.29, 1.07
    1915.38, -0.13
    1915.46, 0.17
    1915.54, 0.17
    1915.63, 0.87
    1915.71, -0.33
    1915.79, -0.93
    1915.88, -0.93
    1915.96, -0.23
    1916.04, -1.83
    1916.13, -0.73
    1916.21, -0.03
    1916.29, -0.33
    1916.38, -1.03
    1916.46, -1.13
    1916.54, -0.73
    1916.63, 1.07
    1916.71, -0.23
    1916.79, 0.57
    1916.88, -2.03
    1916.96, 0.17
    1917.04, -0.93
    1917.13, 0.57
    1917.21, 0.67
    1917.29, 1.27
    1917.38, 1.07
    1917.46, -0.23
    1917.54, -0.63
    1917.63, -0.33
    1917.71, 0.17
    1917.79, 0.87
    1917.88, 0.17
    1917.96, -0.63
    1918.04, -0.43
    1918.13, 0.37
    1918.21, 0.27
    1918.29, 1.07
    1918.38, -0.93
    1918.46, 0.87
    1918.54, -1.03
    1918.63, -1.73
    1918.71, -0.73
    1918.79, 0.87
    1918.88, 0.07
    1918.96, 0.17
    1919.04, -0.83
    1919.13, 0.57
    1919.21, 1.67
    1919.29, 1.27
    1919.38, 0.97
    1919.46, 0.47
    1919.54, -0.03
    1919.63, -1.43
    1919.71, -0.73
    1919.79, -2.03
    1919.88, -1.23
    1919.96, -4.03

Comments are closed.