Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about how the information about temperatures is presented. Usually, we are shown a graph something like Fig. 1, which shows the change in the US temperatures over the last century.
Figure 1. Change in the US annual temperatures, 1895-2009. Data from the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN DATA) [Yes, it’s in Fahrenheit, not Celsius, but hey, it’s US temperature, and besides I’m doing it in solidarity with our valiant allies, all the other noble countries that are bravely fighting a desperate rear-guard action against the global metric conspiracy … Liberia and Myanmar …]
Whoa, this is obviously a huge and scary change, look at the slope of that trend line, this must be something that calls for immediate action. So, what’s not to like about this graph?
What’s wrong with it is that there is nothing in the graph that we can compare to our normal existence. Usually, we don’t even go so far as to think “Well, it’s changed about one degree Fahrenheit, call it half a degree C, that’s not even enough to feel the difference.”
So I decided to look for a way to present exactly the same information so that it would make more sense, a way that we can compare to our actual experience. Fig. 2 is one way to do that. It shows the US temperature, month by month, for each year since 1895.
Figure 2. US yearly temperatures by month, 1895-2009. Each line represents the record for a different year. Red line is the temperature in 2009. Data source as in Fig. 1. Photo is Vernal Falls, Yosemite
Presented in this fashion, we are reminded that the annual variation in temperature is much, much larger than the ~ 1°F change in US temperatures over the last century. The most recent year, 2009, is … well … about average. Have we seen any terrible results from the temperature differences between even the coolest and warmest years, differences which (of course) are much larger than the average change over the last century? If so, I don’t recall those calamities, and I remember nearly half of those years …
To investigate further, Fig. 3 looks at the decadal average changes in the same way.
Figure 3. US decadal average temperatures by month, 1900-2009. Red line is the average for the decade 2000-2009. Photo is Half Dome, Yosemite.
Most months of the year there is so little change in the decadal averages that the lines cannot be distinguished. The warming, what there is, occurred mostly in the months of November, December, January, and February. Slightly warmer temperatures in the winter … somehow, that doesn’t strike me as anything worth breathing hard about.
My point in all of this is that the temperature changes that we are discussing (a global rise of a bit more than half a degree C in the last century) are trivially small. A half degree change cannot be sensed by the human body. In addition, the changes are generally occurring in the winter, outside of the tropics in the cooler parts of the planet, and at night. Perhaps you see this small warming, as has often been claimed, as a huge problem that “vastly eclipses that of terrorism” (the Guardian). Maybe you think this is a pressing concern which is the “defining issue of our era” (UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon).
I don’t. I’m sorry, but for me, poverty and injustice and racial prejudice and totalitarian regimes and recurring warfare and a lack of clean drinking water and torture and rampant disease and lack of education and child prostitution and a host of other problems “vastly eclipse” the possibility of a degree or two of warming happening at night in the winter in the extra-tropics fifty years from now.
Finally, the USHCN records are not adjusted for the urban heat island (UHI) effect. UHI is the warming of the recording thermometers that occurs as the area around the temperature recording station is developed. Increasing buildings, roads, pavement, and the cutting down of trees all tend to increase recorded temperatures. Various authors (e.g. McKitrick, Spencer, Jones) have shown that UHI likely explains something on the order of half of the recorded temperature rise. So even the small temperature rise shown above is probably shown somewhere about twice as large as it actually is …
My conclusion? Move along, folks, nothing to see here …
[UPDATE – Steven Goddard points out below that the USHCN does in fact include a UHI adjustment in their data. The adjustment is detailed here. I don’t agree with the adjustment, because inter alia they claim that the UHI reduces the maximum temperatures in cities. This is contrary to my personal experience and to many studies that find it is hotter in the cities during the daytime as well as at night. But they do make an adjustment.]
To my understanding, the average temperatures are possibly useful to “detect” the influence of factors you want to examine: for instance, CO2.
They are not suitable to “assess” the impact of the factors in question. For this purpose, monthly and/or daily temperatures are more relevant.
This is similar to the use of a microscope to detect microbes. To assess their impact to our health, other methods are needed.
Great illustrations, Willie.
I think though that you’ve missed something: It’s the essential linear extrapolation of the supposed trend line that Warmers present for others in order to elicit emotional reactions – the Alarmist fantasy of a five to nine degrees F temperature increase in the next hundred years.
Unfortunately the ‘nightmare scenario” represents something of an irrefutable hypothesis and is effective propaganda – or so far it has been. Doesn’t mean it is logical or ever was.
Ridicule may be the best weapon, along with parading out the litany of gross historical errors by clowns of the radical left environmental persuasion.
A very good post again from Mr Eschenbac.
I have always had a bee in my bonnet over the presentation of alarmists graphs. I hope this is not to simplistic but the following should be adopted:-
1 Graphs should be set out so that the scale of long periods of time are not disproportionately compressed conversely the scale for small measurements of data should not be disproportianately elongated.
2 Graphs showing anomalies should be accommpanied by graphs of temperature with time.
3 A global temperature is just a statistical trick and has no meaning or value and their use should be discontinued.
If the anomaly graph which Willis posted above was to a proper scale there would be no alarm it would almost be a flat line.
The alternative method of presentation proposed by Willis is superb.
If one your theories has been proven to axiom or better science proof say so.
But all you do is duel.
Paper attacks back and forth.
This is a discussion on data and graphs not your so called expertise.
This is a discussion on results and measurement.
You sir are a Diva.
Ref jim karlock (05:15:20) :
Phil Jones’ answer is misleading. The fact is that the models only partially explain the 1910 to 1945 warming. The observed global temperature rise was about 0.6 C. The models only give a rise of less than 0.2 C. Similarly they do not represent the cooling periods that followed 1945 showing a steady temperature rise until 1961 when the aerosols from Agung volcano start to take effect.
Kate:
“…a global regime to combat climate change. ”
I wonder if they mean “regimen.” “Regimen” suggests a policy; “regime” suggests a political organization. A bit overreaching, if that’s what the writer has in mind.
OT observation, but I am totally baffled how anyone can pass through the US or UK education systems, and presumably reaching a level high enough to be interested in commenting here, and yet never have been taught or even discovered for themselves (by reading literate books) that there is no such word as “alot” – it is actually “a lot” (two words: “a” + “lot”).
I for one believe that it is warmer in Summer than in Winter and I think we should be discussing the science behind that problem. If Obama truly wants to be a great president, he should concentrate on spreading that message and coming up with ways to mitigate this situation. I also think it is a good idea to create some advertising around this issue with coffee cups, tee shirts and news media presentation. Even a world-wide poll designed to inform and bring about a call to action about this situation can be done and should be done.
Willis, Are you a US citizen? If so, please apply for the job, President, United States, which will be available in 2012. If selected for this formerly prestigious position you will have to provide your own funds to live on from early Nov through mid January 2013. Other than that it is a good job.
Of course you realize that temperature depiction is not dramatic enough to warrant immediate action to reduce levels of dangerous CO2, and the presentation itself♦ would be considered ‘cluttered’! 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (03:46:12) :
Zero C is not meaningless wrt climate. Summer temperatures in the central Arctic stay close to 0C, because of the heat required to melt the ice. The same effect has some impact over most of the earth during the winter.
It seems that your graph is “also” misleading. The 2009 data appears to be the lowest set in a few years. Try backing up a year or two and see what the red line looks like. In addition, your presentation doesn’t allow for trends to be detected so it is less than useful for determining changes over time. i.e. you can’t tell what is what except for the 2009 red line. Lastly, your scale is much larger, in effect minimizing the perception of changes. In essence, you are guilty of doing what you accuse the warmers of, presenting the data in a way that “appears” to support your views. Bottom line is that this is only useful for those who wish to see things this way. It does not show anything useful.
“The warming, what there is, occurred mostly in the months of November, December, January, and February.”
When do El Ninos usually occur?
The title is the arena.
This is not discussion in Physics.
It’s Mathematics.
High level Science is interpolative and iterative in essence away from science axioms in specialised fields.
So, given the mass scale deception being perpetrated by the likes of the IPCC, Al Gore and many others, why aren’t they all charged with criminal offenses for scare mongering? If I went around scaring everyone of a non-existent killer asteroid hitting is about to strike us, I would be arrested for disturbing the peace, at least. The same logic should apply to AGW alarmists. What’s worse is the modeled predictions by the AGW alarmist have now been proven to be false by shear observation because the discrepancy between current and modeled temperature trends are now so far removed it’s impossible to trust the models. Anyone who still uses the IPCC predictions is in my opinion is committing a crime.
Sorry about a typo in previous comment – it should be “lambda” of course, not delta. But anyway, if Hansen is right and climate sensitivity is 3 times higher than derived from Planck’s formula, then maybe we will postpone next glaciation (which started already with Maunder Minimum as first step down) for some time, and if that’s the case indeed, then we should really consider calling this additional time before glaciation The Anthropocene… 🙂
I think Hansens grandchildren will be happier in this case rather than being under few kilometers of ice too soon.
stevengoddard (06:21:20) :
The US only makes up 2% of the earth’s land area. If you look at the entire earth, the story is quite different. US and global temperatures started diverging around 1960 and divergence has increased ever since.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_609dcfg9zrc
————————–
Ah, Steve, Steve, Steve….
Didn’t you catch the post a while back that showed Global Warming was spreading like a disease across Africa, one nation at a time, at a pre-determined rate:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/global-warming-from-africa-contagious-spreading-at-100-miles-per-year/
Combine them all together and what do you have? The Earth has A FEVER! (now, where’s my grant application?)
stevengoddard (06:21:20) :
Do you have any theory that could explain how the earth could be getting warmer, but the US isn’t?
Perhaps due to their high use of air con?
Great background on the first graph, Willis!
However, I did find the title not to like. In fact what is shown is not the change in annual US temperature, but annual US temperature itself (as an anomaly, as indicated on the y-label). If these were truly changes, then the integrated total change over the whole period would be roughly zero, but in fact it was +1 or +1.5 dF.
How about instead of plotting anomaly, plot the 150 year temperature trend in Kelvin from absolute zero? Allow me.
1850 – 2010 _____—–______——________——–
Zero (0) deg K _________________________________________
lol
MrC
You’re right Willis, nothing to see here. Everything looks normal.
What I would like to see is a comparison only of the warmest consecutive 10 years in the 30’s to the last 10 years. The last 10 years are supposed to the ‘the warmest 10 years on record’. I have to wonder if the 30’s were just a bit warmer not only in the US but other places in the world.
There are some graphs of surface max and min temps (also rainfall) that have been recorded at the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland, continuously since 1865:
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/averages.html
Shown as monthly averages 1865 – 2000, and described as ‘raw, uncalibrated data’, they are – to my untrained eye – uniformly flat. There is no discernible trend up or down.
Would anyone be able to explain to a layman (me, e.g.) why such data cannot be left as is, but has to be, er, cooked and recalibrated? I understand the implications of UHI, but in this case that seems to not be an issue, as there is no rise in temperature apparent.
Willis Eschenbach (04:13:46) :
But Willis, don’t you see the trend for Alaska is 400 C per 10000 years 🙂
Another great post, Willis – you’re on a roll! I make it that Hommer’s scary plot equates to 0.65 degC/century. Allowing for UHI and other man-made weather station anomolies, this must drop to ~ 0.35degC. By the time allowances are made for measurement accuracy and a crudely determined base line, the average annual temperature across the USA is virtually unchanged in over a century. I suspect that this is the case for most areas of the Earth.
Bernie (04:50:36) said:
“Willis:
Elegant. I also like the cool calm waterfall effect as opposed to the panic-stricken desert effect.”
I think I may be correct in interpreting the “panic-stricken desert effect” background of the first graph as actually being Homer Simpson reenacting Edvard Munch’s famous painting “The Scream”. If that was your original idea, Willis, then it is as clever as your analysis of the graphs.