In Search of Cooling Trends

by Verity Jones and Tony Brown (Tonyb)

Back in October Tony asked me to help with a big idea. Searching Norwegian climate site Rimfrost (www.rimfrost.no) Tony had found many climate stations all over the world with a cooling trend in temperatures over at least the last thirty years – which is significant in climate terms. You see Tony had a grand vision of a website with blue dots on a map representing these “cooling stations”, where clicking on the dots brought up a graph of the data and the wonderful cooling trend. Would this not persuade people to look again at the notion of worldwide global warming?

Figure 1. Map showing stations on Tony's "Cooling List" - stations which appear to have a cooling trend (>30 years) to present (data source: www.rimfrost.no Oct-Dec 2009; Earth image source: Dave Pape)

I asked Tony how many stations he had in mind. “Oh two hundred or so…” He suggested breaking it down into bite-sized chunks and sending me sets of ten at a time. I was to compare the data with that on the GISS site and/or those of national met agencies where available to verify the source, and produce graphs to a standard template.

We were concerned that this could be seen as ‘cherrypicking’ nonetheless it was an attractive idea. In many cases it was not just cherrypicking the stations, but also the start dates of each cooling trend. Despite these reservations we decided to go ahead, although ultimately we have not completed the project, partly for these reasons, but also because it is a case where the journey became more important than the destination and it is worth sharing.

The first 10 (Set 1) of Tony’s target stations, which at this point I should say seemed to be a randomly chosen set, were:

  • Brazil – Curitiba (1885 to 2009) Cooling 1955 to 2009
  • Canada – Edmonton (1881-2009) Cooling from 1886 to 2009
  • Chile – Puerto Montt (1951-2009) Cooling from 1955
  • China – Jiuquan (1934-2009) Cooling all years
  • Russia – Kandalaska (1913-2009) Cooling 1933-2009
  • Iceland – Haell (1931-2009) Cooling all years
  • India – Amritsar (1948-2009) Cooling all years
  • Morocco – Casablanca (1925-2009) Cooling all years
  • Adelaide – Australia (1881-2008) Cooling all years
  • Abilene, Texas – USA (1886-2009) Cooling 1933-2009

The comparisons in many cases were not straightforward. While many matched GISS data, some of the graphs in Rimfrost used unadjusted data, others homogenised data. For some such as Kandalaska, there was a close but not exact match to either GISS data set. The data for Haell was clearly from the Icelandic Met Office, but I could find no match for Edmonton to any GISS series or data from Environment Canada (although having looked at Canadian data further since I am not entirely surprised). The first set took much longer than we had anticipated; however, I drew the graphs to a template and prepared to start on Set 2.

Tony also wanted a ‘spaghetti’ graph for the anomaly data of the first set, and this is where it got most interesting. In fact we were blown away by what the graph looked like. Taking these ten locations from across the globe and superimposing the anomaly data produced a sine wave-like pattern (Figure 2) with distinct cooling from the early 1940s to mid-1970s followed by warming to present; for many of the locations the older data was warmer, or at least as warm as present. Now I had seen this before with many individual stations, but it really impressed me to see the pattern matching from such far-flung locations.

Figure 2. "Spaghetti graph" of anomalies for the ten stations in Set 1.

But in the meantime there were other developments. Tony knew I was interested in putting the GHCN v2.mean temperature data from stations all over the world into a database. As usual, this exceeded my own knowledge and capabilities, but I had made a start and was learning as I went along. Tony, whose contacts and connections never cease to amaze me, put me in touch with a computer professional, database, web and mapping expert who was well known to commenters on The Air Vent, Climate Audit and WUWT as “KevinUK”. Kevin was also keen to put climate data into a database.

By now this was the end of November. Kevin and I rapidly established a good rapport by email and voip and, with really only a few pointers to GHCN and GISS datafiles from me (and probably lots of hindrance), he rapidly built a fully functional database. Not only that but he set about writing software to plot graphs and calculate trends from the data and put the whole lot on an interactive map – and all this in a period of about 6 weeks. It is still a work in progress, fixing glitches and preparing Version 2.0; for more information see blog post Mapping Global Warming and the website itself: www.climateapplications.com.

I did deliver 40 graphs for Tony in the end, but I was quite slow about it (and that “sine wave” pattern kept showing up again and again and stuck in my mind). Tony had moved on to researching other climate projects and Kevin’s maps meanwhile showed so much more than we ever could. With the “sine wave” climatic pattern in mind, the following maps (focussing on North America and Europe) show how climate has cooled, warmed, cooled and warmed again since 1880.

Figure 3. Maps showing temperature trends at weather stations for defined periods. Cooling trends are shown by blue colours: dark blue>blue>light blue>turquoise>pale turquoise. Warming trends are shown by reds: dark red>red>light red>orange>light orange. For full legend see: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/mapping-global-warming/

So is this “sine wave” the true climate signal? It would seem so, although we can’t expect it always to be so regular. Choosing stations that are more closely geographically located does give a more homogeneous shape to the wave.

Figure 4a (left) Anomaly data for a subset of Arctic stations ; Figure 4b (right) Anomaly data for a four US stations.
Figure 5. Anomalies of unadjusted data for stations in Madagascar

It is most extreme in the high Arctic – Figure 4a shows the graph for six stations above 64N where the magnitude of change is +/- several degrees Celsius. Further south (e.g. Figure 4b – four stations in the US) the magnitude is smaller, and close to the equator (Figure 5, Madagascar) the magnitude is less still.

A final point – with the exception of the Madagascar graph, which was prepared for a blog post (link), all these graphs were part of different sets (the first 40 stations for which data was examined). Although the original data was chosen for its cooling trend this, in many cases, results from warmer temperatures in the period 1930-1940 than present.

The wave pattern is still present in many data sets worldwide, no matter what the overall trend. In some the date of the onset of warming or cooling is later or earlier, depending on location – as would be expected with the oceans moving warmth around the globe. In others however the wave pattern is not present or is obliterated by something – in these sets should it be present or not? Is it wiped out by anthropogenic effects on the temperature record such as growth of cities and even small rural communities though the otherwise cooling 40s, 50s and 60s?

For us the take-home message of this study was simply how widespread and consistent the wave pattern is, and this, ultimately is very convincing of the veracity of the arguments against CO2 as a primary cause of current warming. From the physics I don’t doubt it has a role in warming, but its role needs to be disentangled from the large magnitude natural climate swings that are clearly present all over the world – a pattern that is not widely disseminated.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

122 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 4, 2010 6:57 am

Interesting Start, really interesting data although where it will lead is up in the air

Matt G
September 4, 2010 6:57 am

Peter Ellis says:
1) Explain why CO2 doesn’t produce warming, given its known radiative characteristics
2) Explain why sulplates don’t produce cooling, given their known reflective characteristics
3) Suggest a convincing physical process generating a sinusoidal change in surface temperature
4) Explain why the same sinusoidal trend is *not* observed in longer-term data series such as ice core data, tree ring series, etc.
One) The ocean drives the climate and global temperature so the known radiative forces have little effect. UHI’s and evironmental changes have a local affect, but have no influence on climate or weather patterns on a large scale. Since 1940 only 18 years out of 70 have a correlation with CO2 rises. (26%)
Two) All combined aerosols during the changing background only account for about 0.01c per decade. When comparing the effect with major volcanic eruptions have on the earth. Therefore too low to explain these changes that have occurred over the planet.
Three) The oceans and albedo reflect most of this and change how much shortwave radiation reaches the surface, plus in what areas.
Four) Not shown in ice cores because too coarse and some CO2 is lost in the samples when analysing. Tree cores reflect the best growth season only and many factors determines this. For example these show better proxies for droughts then temperature.

September 4, 2010 7:04 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:04 am
it also follows the solar velocity power waves. A similar solar modulation pattern is also a close fit.
No, jinki, [not sure what the muddled ‘solar velocity power wave’ concept is] solar activity does not follow the sine wave pattern of this topic.

Editor
September 4, 2010 7:08 am

Thanks to all so far for the really positive response. I’ve done enough of my own nitpicking about this study, which is one of the reasons we sat on it for so long (having put it to one side in December), however that does not mean we have been idle, and the ideas and analysis are moving along still. The key to posting it has been in finding the crux of the story – the take home message if you will, and that is that this pattern exists and is widespread, even to the point of being able to match disparate locations, but not to say any more than that.
There are many anthropogenic changes that may have affected local temperature records – changes in agricultural practices for example, that may have the same effect ascribed to CO2. How do we disentangle those? We need to think differently.
The full map here of the 1940-1969 period is here: http://www.climateapplications.com/GHCN/images/GISSraw1940to1969map.png The cooling trend beginning in ~1940 and running to ~1970 is important. Indeed it may have been reduced by man’s activities rather than caused by them (as global dimming – sulphur etc.); it is widespread, yet completely misses out many places close to others which are cooling. As many commenters point out CO2 (and SO2) should not do that.

Gail Combs
September 4, 2010 7:08 am

#
#
jim karlock says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:43 am
Peter EllisIf you want to chuck that out of the window, you have to:
1,2,3,4, etc
JK: Or you have to compare that sine curve to the solar cycle data and see how good the match is.
Thanks
JK
________________________________
Do not forget the ocean cycles too.

Stephen Wilde
September 4, 2010 7:11 am

Peter Ellis:
Good questions but the answers are readily available to all who bother to look and think.
1) Explain why CO2 doesn’t produce warming, given its known radiative characteristics
Either or both of:
i) Too small in relation to natural variability to be measaurable.
ii) Readily offset by negative feedbacks especially by changes in the hydrological cycle.
2) Explain why sulplates don’t produce cooling, given their known reflective characteristics
Same as for 1) above
3) Suggest a convincing physical process generating a sinusoidal change in surface temperature
Variable rates of energy release from the oceans combined with solar variability and as a direct consequence of those cyclical elements a cycling latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems resulting in changing global albedo and variable solar input to the oceans.
4) Explain why the same sinusoidal trend is *not* observed in longer-term data series such as ice core data, tree ring series, etc.
Those proxy sources of data are too coarse to reveal the full extent of natural climate variability because to varying degrees they are partly dependant on other variables.
If AGW theory is dependent on an alleged lack of answers to those questions then it is a small beast indeed.

Jim
September 4, 2010 7:16 am

******
Peter Ellis says:
September 4, 2010 at 3:44 am
Isn’t this well-known?
******
The period of their chart is included in Mann’s hockey stick chart. Where’s the hockey stick blade? Isn’t this well-known?

Editor
September 4, 2010 7:22 am

I should point out that most of the data from Rimfrost matched unadjusted (GHCNv2mean) combined station data from GISS (downloaded Oct-Dec 09). Some of the data matched original sources (e.g Icelandic Met office) and some matched GISS homogenised. I considered it a major issue that the data was such a mixture and would have been happier if it was all unadjusted, or all homogenised.
Kevin went back to original sources NOAA/GISS for his maps of which there are both unajusted (‘raw’)and adjusted data versions.

Bernie McCune
September 4, 2010 7:31 am

Thanks to the authors and all of us relatively intelligent amateurs for all your work. We have more than opinions on some of these complicated issues. And thanks to Antony for giving us the ability to share our work.
For Robert Kral and Abilene TX temps – One year’s average temp is weather. See below.
When I was putting together the monthly averaged annual NM temps, I noticed a couple of interesting things. First that NM temps from site to site “followed” each other or were in phase mostly throughout the length of the record (60 to 110 years depending on the site). Secondly, temperature swings from year to year might be very dramatic and of course temperatures at alpine sites versus desert sites were offset by several degrees. Swings from year to year might be as much as 7 degrees and offsets due to altitude and/or biota might be as much as 10 degrees. But decadal trends were very obvious and were also mostly in phase at most of the sites. All these were in degrees F.
I looked at temperatures in Japan and found this same regional “in phase” spikey temperature trend. Two things I found in the Japanese temperature data- first was an increase of 1 degree C in 1989 that did not spike back down for the next 4 or 5 years. The second interesting thing about the Japanese data when I compared it to my NM data was that it was exactly out of phase. When NM sites were trending up, Japanese sites were trending down. WUWT?

Brad
September 4, 2010 7:31 am

Great work. You wave certainly does not seem to follow the suspot record. but it sure shows a possible feedback loop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:800px-Sunspot_butterfly_with_graph.gif

Roger Lancaster
September 4, 2010 7:33 am

Peter Ellis: “If you want to chuck that out of the window, you have to: explain …”.
Not actually – this is an observation, just plotting of the data. As such it just “is”. You can’t chuck the data even if you can’t explain it. If this represents CO2 warming vs. sulphate cooling, why the sine wave pattern? Clearly something is going on.

riskaverse
September 4, 2010 7:48 am

Geoff Sharpe: The sine wave is pretty simple really, it follows the PDO trend……
I believe Roy Spencer also has something to say about cloud cover tracking PDO and temperature.
What does he say?
Is cloud cover a driver or consequence?
Spencer says it’s a forcing:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/

Bill Yarber
September 4, 2010 7:50 am

Peter
You have the cause and effect reversed. Look at all the ice core data. Earth’s themperatures increase and CO2 concentrations increase 200-800 years later. When Earth’s temperatures decrease, CO2 concentrations finally fall 800-2,000 years later.
CO2 concentrations have been increasing over the last 200 years because we came out of the LIA and the oceans warmed, outgassing CO2. Any fool can see that CO2 is a lagging indicator, nota forcing! That is why it is obvious to anyone without an ulterior motive that AGW is the biggest scam ever foisted on humanity!
Bill Yarber

Neo
September 4, 2010 8:06 am

In some the date of the onset of warming or cooling is later or earlier, depending on location
A “phase” plot would be interesting.

Neo
September 4, 2010 8:06 am

In some the date of the onset of warming or cooling is later or earlier, depending on location
A animated “phase” plot would be interesting.

DirkH
September 4, 2010 8:10 am

richard telford says:
September 4, 2010 at 3:53 am
“You can tell rather little about the cause of warming from the temperature records alone. You have to consider the forcing histories, both natural (solar, volcanic, etc.) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gases, aerosols etc.).”
Yeah, aerosols. Aerosols are nice. We can assign a positive or a negative forcing to them, any way we need it to make the GCM hindcasting fit. And as long as we don’t do real science to find out the real influence of aerosols, we stay free to use them to fudge our models any way we need to to achieve our political goals, right? So just let’s not do real science. Knowledge always gets in the way of the cult leaders.

September 4, 2010 8:21 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:04 am
No, jinki, [not sure what the muddled ‘solar velocity power wave’ concept is] solar activity does not follow the sine wave pattern of this topic.
Not muddled, just not understood by yourself, can I advise a link that might be enlightening.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

September 4, 2010 8:24 am

riskaverse says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:48 am
Geoff Sharpe: The sine wave is pretty simple really, it follows the PDO trend……
I believe Roy Spencer also has something to say about cloud cover tracking PDO and temperature.
What does he say?
Is cloud cover a driver or consequence?
Spencer says it’s a forcing:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/

I can see by your concealed ID that it describes reality.
Take the risk and describe your point.

September 4, 2010 8:26 am

Excellent work. Well done Tony and Ms Jones of course.

September 4, 2010 8:27 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:04 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:04 am
it also follows the solar velocity power waves. A similar solar modulation pattern is also a close fit.
No, jinki,

I see that my associate “jinki” is giving you a caning on solarcycle24.com

Editor
September 4, 2010 8:30 am

Peter Taylor says:

September 4, 2010 at 4:29 am
Very interesting I’ve been looking at some of the Arctic too with interest in the Northwest passage, but have only done a few non-technical postings so far, although they are coming (when I can find the time). It frustrates me no end that many of the current spate of well-meaning expeditions to the Arctic are highlight the warming, but few ever bother to read into the climate history.
DaveF says:

September 4, 2010 at 4:35 am
You can find my email address under the ‘About’ tab on the blog.
Espen says:

September 4, 2010 at 5:12 am
“Suppose Spencer’s feedback estimate is right, and CO2 doubling only amounts to about 0.6 degrees of warming. Then current CO2-induced warming is only ~0.2 degrees, i.e. hardly detectable.”
I’d certainly bet on a ‘real figure’ below current levels of ‘measured’ warming, but it is mostly gut instinct from looking at the data.
Bernie McCune says:

September 4, 2010 at 5:50 am
“It seems to be about a 60 year cycle and I agree with Geoff Sharp that it is a multi-decadal PDO trend that is tied to solar modulation noted by Scaffetta.”
Tonyb provided this link, which is certainly persuasive: http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/03/26/scafetta-on-the-60-year-temperature-cycle/
“Don’t want to get too crazy about all this cyclical stuff but does seem to jump out at you without looking too hard.”
That’s exactly how I’ve felt about it!
Don Easterbrook, I knew your name, but have not previously looked at your site. I’ve just found it and will have a thorough look with interest.

magellan
September 4, 2010 8:33 am

There are also cyclical waves within the satellite LT ocean data.
http://tinyurl.com/yb8k5mh

Jim G
September 4, 2010 8:59 am

Bill Yarber says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:50 am
Peter
“You have the cause and effect reversed. Look at all the ice core data. Earth’s themperatures increase and CO2 concentrations increase 200-800 years later. When Earth’s temperatures decrease, CO2 concentrations finally fall 800-2,000 years later.
CO2 concentrations have been increasing over the last 200 years because we came out of the LIA and the oceans warmed, outgassing CO2. Any fool can see that CO2 is a lagging indicator, nota forcing! That is why it is obvious to anyone without an ulterior motive that AGW is the biggest scam ever foisted on humanity!”
Bill Yarber
With all of the intercorrelations of the potential causal variables, the reversed cause and effect is as good a bet a any. We should not, however, make public policy which has drastic economic consequences based on Las Vegas principles as is being done by the AGW crowd. Excellent post!!

September 4, 2010 9:01 am

It seems to confirm that the planet climate is a self regulating system – like any such system, there will be an oscillation between the high and low points as the various mechanisms in play act to “correct” the variable. (In this case, temperature). (leaving aside the argument that we don’t know what the right temperature is for the planet!)
But the analysis does not explain what the mechanisms are that create the oscillation. In addition, if there is an underlying planet scale forcing (Anthropogenic CO2 being the current favourite) then the overall trend would still be up – but with a visible oscillation superimposed. It looks from the graphs that there is no long term upward trend – but that’s just from the visuals not from the data…..
Whilst interesting, it seems to me it will not be enough to impact the views of the AGW proponents.

rbateman
September 4, 2010 9:09 am

The amplitude of the sine wave, that is so often seen in long-term weather data, is muted by the presence of moisture, or it’s absence.
Sacramento, CA, Delta breeze capital:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SacCRU.GIF
Winnemucca, NV, popcorn dry:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Winn1.GIF

Verified by MonsterInsights