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.
ML (18:01:15) :
The point isn’t in the averaging. The real plan is to use the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [shoot a hole in a barn door, then draw a bullseye around it].
Out of that many models, if one comes close enough, the alarmist contingent will point to it and say, “Told ya. Global warming!”
Hansen did the same thing with his Scenario A, B and C. Now everyone points to C, which was the closest. Even though they were all wrong: click
I find it amazing that climate data analysis centers keep finding bugs in their analyses. They are so incompetent. Why can’t they be like Microsoft and Apple and eliminate bugs altogether?
Bob Tisdale (19:01:49) :
But I am not claiming linear trends. My claim is that there is no trend.
After I claimed there is no trend, people have asked me to prove that by demonstrating a trend. That is a Catch 22.
Domain registration for ClimateCentral
DirkH (16:44:58) :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.
In fact they do. Google ‘climate models training validation set’ and you’ll get a gazillion hits.
If you really want justice its much simplier than going to court. We have Heidi “eyecandy” Cullen nominated for the Queen of the eelpout Festival in Walker MN next February. After a delightful day of weighing in what is arguably the most ugly freshwater fish in the Northland Queen Heidi would preside over the traditional KISSING of the Eelpout. Her court would include various local ladies who would consider this great sport, having kissed boyfriends far worse than a fish. My lawyer refers to this as “playground justice” She will swear off global warming forever.
Next suggestion! What would your playground justice be? What would Mann, Jones, Connelly and other assorted warmists enjoy in your town?
Dr T G Watkins (13:36:14) :
Is there no way the alarmists can be taken to court in the US for spreading false, unsubstantiated claims about future climate disaster which will lead, if heeded, to the impoverishment of the nation?
British courts are too weak and more and more influenced and controlled by Europe.
I, for one, would be prepared to contribute to a fighting fund, if a credible case could be made. I suspect many others who visit this site would contribute if this nonsense could be finally put to rest.
Why do GISS and some other start their temperature record at 1880?
Go back two years to 1878 and there is a huge heat spike, was actually hotter than at least one year post 2000. That is what I get when independently processing hadcrut3 gridded.
It sure makes a hellava counterpoint to the usual hockey, suddenly there is a bathtub shape.
How true was it. I don’t know but digging for weather reports can unearth things. Such as a report from 29th March 2010
“Twin Cities’ first snowless March since 1878”
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/03/first_snowless.php
and literally today!
“Best rain since 1878
NINO BUCCI
03 Apr, 2010 04:00 AM
BENDIGO has recorded its wettest March for more than 130 years.”
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/best-rain-since-1878/1793191.aspx
“Minnesota’s “Year Without a Winter”
1877-1878″
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/wint77_78.html
And that is the start.
Can anyone dig out the official reason for the choice of 1880?
A big problem as I have been trying to get across for some time & Max Hugoson has recently joined me on is, temperature alone means sweet fanny adams
Max did the calculations in old money, (°F, BTU/lbm), I converted to new money, (°C, J/g)!
We got the same answer in different forms. Temperature alone was NOT a good indicator of energy.
We have virtually no chance of recovering a good energy signature of anything except for those places that have both temperature & humidity records. I assume there are some humidity records from some satellite measurements, so that’s a mere 30 years or so.
Start again & do the job properly!
DaveE.
BTW
Leif called me on my 1st post along the lines of my latest. He asked if I would stick by it if temps dropped. I said then, YES & I say it again. even if average temps drop, it means NOTHING!
I might give the AGW alarmists some stick but, at the end of the day, that is my stance.
Temperature alone is irrelevant!
DaveE.
I am not sure whether there is any point in including articles such as this.
While I have no problems with the use of computer models, the key test is that they correspond with real measurements, which none of them do. Hence, in any true scientific environment, they are invalid and should be discarded. To pursue these ideas when they do not correspond to reality pushes them in to the area of pseudo-science, like astrology versus astronomy. The perpetrators are not climate scientists, but ‘climatologers’.
When we have threads discussing what would happen if these pseudo-scientific models were true then it seems a waste of time. As the models are invalid then anything which uses them is also invalid. Fighting such drivel is like fighting the hydra, cut off one and seven more jump up in their place.
These computer models depend on water vapour being a positive reinforcement to CO2 warming, while research suggests water vapour has a negative feedback. For a doubling of CO2 it is expected that there will be a 0.5C increase in temperature. The only theory I know which fits in with reality is by Miskolczi, who calculates the increase to be 0.48C for a doubling of CO2. Miskolczi also predicts no tropopause warming, in agreement with radio sonde and satellite measurements.
There is a good explanation of Miskloczi’s theory here :
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
Tom W (19:05:33) :
You wrote “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.”
I think you are wrong, the models are build in part on past relationships and correlations and with ‘tuning’, not only on physics theory. If the climate models were built on equations based on physics, then all the models would return the same results. They don’t all make the same projections. How accurate are the IPCC projections when compared to actual results?? Didn’t Phil Jones say that there was no significant warming in the past ten years?
But the original question was (para phased) if a model can reproduce the past, does that mean the model was a good predictor of the future? And the answer is no. I can show you my race track models, football models and stock market models that have fair R^2’s and very good P values when recreating the past, and they are mostly worthless for the future. LOL.
See a review of Hansen’s 1988 model forecast here
http://climateaudit.org/2006/08/26/willis-e-on-hansen-and-model-reliability/
Here are March anomalies for Hurbanovo meteostation, southwest Slovakia:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2mdkx1d.jpg
Very interesting that some month do not show any increase (March, September, October, December) and only spring and summer months show pronounced 1960-1985 cooling and warming since.
A little OT, but interesting.
For those who claim that glacial retreat is evidence of AGW, here’s a link I noticed over on Bishop Hill’s blog.
http://www.archive.org/stream/comptesrendusofo00buchiala#page/n343/mode/2up
Regarding the Lower Grindelwald Glacier.
“The picture of 1777 represents the glacier as no more extensive or more voluminous than I remember it to have been in 1867.
The picture made in 1909 shows no ice in the main valley , nor is there any visible in the lateral valley, until a considerable elevation is reached…”
“Tom W (19:23:05) :
[…]
In fact they do. Google ‘climate models training validation set’ and you’ll get a gazillion hits.”
Well, every combination of words would do that. I find a lot of junk, Tom, and outdated stuff. Do you have something that you would recommend?
Steve Goddard (19:18:36) : You replied, “But I am not claiming linear trends. My claim is that there is no trend.”
How do you define “trend”, Steven?
Steve Goddard (19:08:57) : You replied. “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.”
Then you should have clarified your opinion in the post instead of simply stating that there is no trend, especially when there was a trend.
Tim Channon (19:29:03) :
The evidence for a huge heat spike in California exists in 1874-1878. I found it in Phil Jones CRU 94 & 99 sets. Such data has to come from the original US Weather Bureau stations, as referred to in the AMS Montly Weather Reviews. I cannot find anything earlier than October 1884 for reference to these stations, and they apparently go back to 1872 or thereabouts.
We should ask Phil Jones where he got the US W.B. data from.
The only way to effectively save the planet from Oxi-Morons is to appoint Truck Drivers, Butchers, Check-Out Clerks, Cops, Enlisted Personnel in the Armed Forces, Janitors, Window Washers, Postal Workers, X-Ray Techs, Cab Drivers, Newspaper Delivery Specialists, Bar Tenders, Fastfood Cooks, Laundry and Dry Cleaning Techs, School Janitors, Bilge Cleaners, Welders, Forklift Operators, Wal-Mart Shelf Stockers, Bakers, Tinkers, Taylors, amd Candlestick Makers, and the like, to Tenure Boards at Universities and Colleges, High Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary Schools, Kindergardens, and Day Care Centers. Sorry, but it’s the ONLY way!
AHHHHHHH… People here that rely on statistics to prove something that’s not provable are deplorable.
When the standard deviation SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs whatever best fit line (I refuse to call it a “trend”), you are squeezing blood from a temperature turnip.
THERE IS NO VERIFIABLE TREND! GO BACK TO REMEDIAL STATISTICS 98.
The operative word in the above line is “verifiable”, by the way. Anybody that’s dealt with real-world applications of statistics would laugh you out of the room on this one. The correct response should be: Let’s wait another couple hundred years (or if we had the data go back another couple hundred years and include that) until we have enough data that whatever best-fit line we come up with doesn’t get us laughed at.
Or if you prefer, you could just select whatever 5-year period that suits your climate theology, run a “Trend” and scream THE WORLD IS BOILING or THE WORLD IS FREEZING and apply for some gubmint grant somewhere. (I’d recommend the former, since that’s what’s getting people a lot of cash right now.)
Assume for a moment that the temperature population follows a normal distirbution and apply a 2-sigma (1.96) confidence interval and the sampling error ranges +/- 7.2 around the mean. Can your “trend” of 0.017 degrees/decade get any more ridiculous?
But here’s the clincher: What if temperature variations in climate arent linear? How can you be sure that they are? Why apply such, then? Is it your intent to extrapolate forward 100 years? You’re saying climate goes in only one direction? How can you possibly justify that?
I wonder if Heidi Cullen stops to think how people view her because of her gloom and doom.
David Alan Evans (20:00:19) :
A big problem as I have been trying to get across for some time & Max Hugoson has recently joined me on is, temperature alone means sweet fanny adams
Agree!…but now we need a hundred Katrinas and a thousand 8.8 richter earthquakes and only one well executed liberal economy, to wipe out everything and so change paradigms in such a way as to convert even to Dr.LS (famed Dominican Friar from the settled science inquisition) 🙂 🙂
Bob,
I made plots of March temperature vs. atmospheric CO2. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin show temperatures declining at a rate of about 7.5C/100ppm.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_525hcm5tkhg
But the trends are not statistically significant. There is no meaningful upwards or downwards trend in upper midwest temperatures over the last few decades.
Pascvaks (05:27:51) : The IPCC already DID IT !!! Didn´t you know it?
Just check the names, beginning with Lovely and Tender “Patchy”.
There was a mild winter this year in that area. So it is capitalizing on low hanging fruit to assert global warming is happening. But the mild winter was from El Nino not co2. If the El Nino does end this year and La Nina does start before next winter comes, as some are predicting, the jet stream (that Pamela mentions, oh, every once in a little while 🙂 ) will bring Arctic air to that area. It will not be mild winter in there because of that.
Diagram of El Nino and La Nina:
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/nino_nina.jpg
just La Nina:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/rnk/Newsletter/Spring_2008/climate_files/LaNina_weather_pattern.jpg
Ref – Enneagram (07:10:18) :
Pascvaks (05:27:51) : The IPCC already DID IT !!! Didn´t you know it? Just check the names, beginning with Lovely and Tender “Patchy”.
_________________________
No they didn’t! That’s my point. “Patchy” would have been scratched on the first cut by the “New” Board. The people who “APPROVED” Patchy are the same ones who blessed the UN General Secretary, and the Department and Cabinet chiefs of every Western government. Inbreeding tells! We need new blood.
Ref – “Climate Central’s recent claim”
Climate Central is only doing the same thing that every other organization does when the wind dies down and the crew is bored. Please check out link below –
http://www.westpacstories.com/The_Seabat.html
“a seabat, is a seabat, is a seabat”