Is March In The Upper Midwest Losing It’s Freeze? The actual data doesn’t seem to support Climate Central’s recent claim.
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Yesterday, WUWT discussed an article on future regional temperature modeling from Heidi Cullen et. al at Climate Central claiming that most of the upper Midwest will no longer be freezing in March by the year 2090 – as a result of increases in atmospheric CO2 content. This was based on averaging the output of 16 different climate models. Here’s the image included in their press release:
Caption: In blue: projected areas with average March temperatures below freezing in the 2010s (above) compared to the 2090s (below), under a high carbon emissions scenario extending current trends. Click image for an interactive map
As you can see below, CO2 has been increasing rather steadily for the last few decades, particularly the last 30 years. No dispute there.
Source: Scripps Trends in Carbon Dioxide
If Climate Central’s press release theory were correct, we would expect to have already seen an increase in March temperatures, and an increase in number of years above freezing. Below is a graph of NCDC March temperatures for Wisconsin since 1979.
The orange line is the mean and the red line is the freezing line. Note that not only is there no trend towards a warmer March, but the standard deviation is high (3.67) and the range is also large – about 15 degrees difference between the warmest and coldest March.
Source: NCDC Wisconsin March Temperature data
Even so, the 100 year graph of March temperature in Wisconsin seems rather flat also.
The next graph is the number of years above freezing per decade. As you can see, there were fewer years above freezing in the last decade than there were in the 1980s.
Minnesota shows the same patterns – no warming and high variability. The number of years above freezing has also decreased.
NCDC Minnesota March Temperatures
And here is the 100 year March temperature graph, like Wisconsin, pretty flat:
Like Wisconsin, it seems there have been less days above freezing in recent decades:
Conclusion: Based on the NCDC data, there is no evidence that increases in CO2 over the last 30 years have affected March temperatures in the north central region of the USA or moved the freeze line north. Once again, we see a case of scientists trusting climate models ahead of reality.
More on Climate Central:
http://climatecentral.org/about
http://climatecentral.org/about/people/
UPDATE:
Here is Minnesota and Wisconsin with five different trend lines for different start years.
In order to highlight the lack of correlation between year and March temperature, I also made a scatter diagrams:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Henry chance (14:33:57) :
It is comforting in Rhode Island to note the models say they are high and dry. If you still have some battery left in your Blackberry you will note that we can’t believe the weather caster. The flooding picts must be an anomaly.
___________
So you noticed that we had a Synod conjunction with Saturn back on the 22nd, that brought more moisture into your mid-latitudes, and then after the 22nd the discharge phase pulled all of that moisture out of the atmosphere in your area of New England. I can still hear them screaming in the headlines about 500 year floods… Unprecedented…. Globull warming…. Chaotic weather…
In my forecast based on past patterns you can see the “Normal” pattern that we would have happened with out the planetary influence you got to see first hand. I still have not gotten included a method of reinserting what these influences do to change the “Past data analog” to adjust for the current planetary influences, which is when and where it goes bad.
It is kind of like knowing that it is the bullet that kills not the empty gun, while watching the robbers hand shake uncontrollably.
Looks like Al Gore has lost a little weight since ClimateGate was exposed to the world . You’d think he’d be a little heavier since he’s been eating all of that crow .
After ClimateGates exposure , I read somewhere that German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an Independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the Skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.
inviting the Skeptics next time around ? Now thats real Science .
Steve Goddard (15:29:41) :
“Here are scatter diagrams showing the lack of correlation between March temperature and year.”
I agree, no trend for the past 30 years, but a positive trend for the last 100 years (as your average temperatures show).
The US trends for march and annual mean are different, as the NCDC graphs show:
annual:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=01&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif&id=110-00
March:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/mar/Reg110Dv00Elem02_03032009_pg.gif
January:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2010&bmonth=01&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=110-00
@Charles: If you take UAH temperatures, you see, that there are strong changes caused by natural factors, up to 1 degree C in a quite short time, for example from Aptil 1998 (+0.76 °C) to January 2000 (-0.24 °C) and now back the opposite direction from -0.13 (Mai 2008) to +0.7 (March 2010).
So it is difficult to find a small positive or negative long term trend and it doesn’t make much sence to look at a 10 years trend. 10 years trend was negative a couple of months ago, now it is positive, after the next la nina it might become negative again.
“Charles S. Opalek, PE (15:31:29) :
[…]
Anyone with an answer?”
It’s a blip (don’t watch the man behind the curtain!).
T”om W (13:57:26) :
Ron McGathy (13:26:37) :It seems an easy way to test models would be to model the past. If your model matches the reality of what was in the past then this would be a pretty good proof of your model standing up in the future. All climate model should use that as a standard. Or am I just being to simple?
You are not and they do (although I’m not so sure about these non-Academic centers that produce non-peer reviewed ‘research’.”
Ron *IS* being too simple. Sorry Ron. When you make your model fit the past you are doing curve fitting. Nothing more.
A good way to see whetehr you’ve been overfitting your model is to divide your real measurements into two halves. Now make your model fit the first half of the data. This is the training set.
Then see whether your model correctly emulates the second half of the data. This is the validation set.
I know, the climatologists didn’t do it that way.
But it would have been sane.
Climte Kate (16:20:21) :
This is what you we really looking for – March temperature vs. CO2 Both states show a slightly negative and statistically insignificant trend.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElkeUxmczVuY256YUdFRk5EblVVRGc&oid=1&v=1270251631212
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdElkeUxmczVuY256YUdFRk5EblVVRGc&oid=2&v=1270251800342
Climte Kate (16:20:21) :
From the article:
DirkH;
A good way to see whetehr you’ve been overfitting your model is to divide your real measurements into two halves. Now make your model fit the first half of the data. This is the training set.
Then see whether your model correctly emulates the second half of the data. This is the validation set.>>
Thought about it for a moment and I don’t think that validates the model either. We’ve been in a warming trend since the 1700’s with a few cooling trends intermittant through out. So if you consider that we are at the upper end of 300 years of warming, the current conditions actually do merit the term “unprecedented”. With earth radiance increasing with T^4 (amongst other factors) all hindcasting tells us is how well the models simulate the complexity of the environment for that temperature range. Assuming that getting it right makes it valid for a higher temperature range is just a bad assumption in my view. The models predicted less ice, more ocean heat content, more storms, stronger storms and got them all wrong. Those things may have been true for warming from the 1800’s to the 1900’s for example, but clearly are not true for the current temperature range.
It will be hard to change the current paradigmas, as always they are kept by the intimate and personal fear of being called a fool.
Day after day,
Alone on a hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he’s just a fool,
And he never gives an answer,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
or the sound he appears to make,
and he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
And nobody seems to like him,
they can tell what he wants to do,
and he never shows his feelings,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.
Ooh, ooh,
Round and round and round.
And he never listens to them,
He knows that they’re the fools
They don’t like him,
The Beatles.
RockyRoad (13:31:46) : You wrote, “Bob, one doesn’t need a computer or a calculator to detect a trend–the old eyeball does an acceptable job of seeing correlation or lack thereof. These old eyeballs don’t detect a trend. Do yours?”
My eyes work just fine, thanks. In fact, to confirm what my ancient eyes told me, I reproduced Steven Goddard’s graph and had EXCEL throw a trend line on it. It turns out that the Wisconsin March Temperature graph from 1979 to 2009 does have a “trend towards a warmer March.” In fact, the trend is 0.13 deg F per decade or 1.3 deg F per century.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2w3ugyh.png
The two flat lines that Steven threw on the graph must have altered your perception of trend.
You continued, “But as Mr. Goddard explained in a previous comment, what deflects any possibility of a trend is demonstrated by the charts that show the number of years above freezing.”
The linear trend of the data is not dictated by the number of years above freezing, which represents about one third of the data; it’s determined from all of the data.
Every ad or prospectus for investing I’ve ever seen carries the warning: Past performance is no guarantee of future results/returns. (Or words to that effect.)
Maybe that sort of warning should be required for all climate related predictions. Sort of like truth in advertising for those seeking to influence politicians and the public.
John from CA (13:33:21) :
Was this one an April Fools joke?
“This was based on averaging the output of 16 different climate models.”
If the climate models are all inaccurate, what’s the point in the average?
Now we know how average BS looks like
Steve Goddard (12:27:31) : You replied, “I certainly can look at these graphs and say that there is no evidence of either an upwards or downwards trend,” and continued, “The onus is on the people claiming warming to demonstrate the upwards trend, not me.”
Spreadsheet have trend analysis programs to confirn one’s perceptions. In my earlier reply, Steven, I wasn’t claiming a warming. I disagreed with your comment that there was no trend when you were not presenting a trend line and equation on the graph. In addition to the data, you had two flat lines that represented 32 deg F and the mean temperature of the data. I didn’t care if the trend was positive or negative or flat, Steven; all I wanted to see was a trend line to confirm the statement.
BTW, the linear trend for the data in your Wisconsin March Temperature graph is positive, at ~0.13 deg F per decade.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2w3ugyh.png
“Just The Facts (17:49:41) :
D’oh, this was intended for the other thread, i.e the averaging of arctic sea ice extent and area. Firefox’s additional page loads are great except when you have multiple threads open, and tend to just hit end and post a reply…
Bob Tisdale (17:40:21) :
The trend you claim in your graph has zero statistical significance. Look at the scatter plot.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/scatter_diagram_for_wisconsin_march_temperatures.png
The rsq value is 0.0014. You are claiming a 0.13 trend in a plot with standard deviation of 3.67. Think about that.
Climte Kate (15:08:22),
Here’s what’s happening with global temps: click
And here’s what’s happening with global CO2: click
Do you believe CO2 is the main driver of temperature? Or even a significant forcing?
Is there a series of CO2 data other than the one from Mauna Loa?
It is extremely suspicious that practically everyone in the world is relying upon the one and the same data measured on the slope of the active volcano.
Volcanoes emit enormous amount of gases, CO2 included. Volcanic activity has been on the rise in recent years.
Isn’t it one of the fundamental requirements in experimental science that results must be independently confirmed, and not once but regularly?
Give me unadjusted CO2 data measured in Himalayas, in Siberia, and in Antarctic for comparison.
One of the things that strikes me as peculiar is the steady, monotonous increase in CO2 from Mauna Loa. No annual fluctuations from volcanoes, no changes from a global depression in business, no increases from the Chinese rapidly building coal fired power plants. Has anyone ever compared this CO2 graph to petroleum and coal usage? I was taught a long time ago that “nature abhors a straight line.” Somehow, the graph looks artificial to me.
Steven: And the linear trend of the Minnesota March temperture graph you presented is essentially flat at ~0.017 deg F per decade:
http://i44.tinypic.com/k2xm36.jpg
That’s all I wanted to see, linear trends on the graphs, when you’re discussing linear trends.
I would just like to point out a couple simple points:
1) We know that regional climate models have a very difficult time capturing temperatures in the Plains even when run for past climate. See NARCCAP (a set of simulations performed over the US for both future and present) simulations http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/results/ncep-results.html. We are talking the models being off between 5-10K in the Northern Great Plains winter months …. don’t be fooled by the scale they use on their contour plots.
2) Phase change in soil and atmosphere is very poorly captured in the models (Fig 1 in http://www.springerlink.com/content/aqeyhwqpqmvh5kyt/fulltext.pdf is just one example of this but check the references therein)
These points alone should make one reluctant to make a strong claim about a climate regime 80 yrs away. whatever happened to humble hard science?
Some facts,
1. Earth 200,000,000 sq mi,
2. GISTEMP/CRU 3,000 world wide temperature data points
3. New England 72K sq mi: CT, VT, NH, Ma, RI, Me
4. Therefore, 1 temperature data point for New England, close enough. No!?
So Climate Central projects New England go from ~75% Freezing March coverage in 2010 to ~20% coverage in 2090.
With 1 temperature data point! They must have some astonishing algorithms to model of our stochastic, chaotic climate systems with so little relative data.
Oversimplified, hmmm, maybe. But I’ll concede: I MADE MY POINT! LOL
DirkH (16:44:58) : “Ron *IS* being too simple. Sorry Ron. When you make your model fit the past you are doing curve fitting. Nothing more.”
Ridiculous. No one ‘makes’ the model fit the past. Given the complexity of atmospheric flows that is impossible with only a few tuneable parameters. Models results are compared to the past just as physical theories are compared to experiments. The only real difference being that there is only one ‘experiment’ – the evolution of the real atmosphere.
The Hokey S(h)tick Lives
They wont let it die… they have been dis-proven time and time again….
Modeling requires thousands of variable inputs from varying systems and this only goes to prove that it remains woefully inadequate..
Bob Tisdale (17:40:21) :
I didn’t notice that you were using a decadal trend. I should have said:
“You are claiming a 0.013/yr trend in a plot with standard deviation of 3.67”
The standard deviation is 30 times larger than the trend you claim across the plot (0.39) The linest trend is meaningless, and would have been misleading to have put in the article.
More comedy from ClimateCentral
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/like_ice_melting_in_a_glass