The Contiguous U.S. Surface Air Temperature Data Through 2012 – Is the Recent Warming Trend Unusual?
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
There’s going to be a press conference today with James Hansen of GISS and Tom Karl of NOAA. According to the press release, at 10AM EST on Tuesday January 15th, they’re going to tell us all about nasty weather around the globe in 2012.
Right up there near the tops of their lists has to be surface air temperatures in the United States, Figure 1, which were thankfully warm in the 2012. (I’m old. I prefer warm weather.) We’ve been hearing for months about how warm it was. I’m sure they’ll be happy to tell us about it at least one more time.
Figure 1
As many of you know, I normally don’t pay any attention to land surface air temperatures. I study sea surface temperature data. So, with all of the nonsense we’ve been hearing this year, I was surprised to see there was nothing unusual about the rate of warming over the past couple of decades in the contiguous U.S., even with the thankfully warm weather in 2012.
It’s very obvious that land surface air temperatures in the U.S. warmed rapidly from 1917 to 1934. Then there was a cooling period for a number of decades, which was followed by the recent warming period. What’s unusual about that? It could be argued that the recent warming started in 1979 or 1993. So let’s compare the trend of the early warming period to the trends of the recent warming period with the start years of 1979 and 1993.
The linear trend of the early warming period (1917 to 1934) was 0.997 Deg F/ Decade. The linear trend for the recent warming period with the start year of 1979 is far below it, at 0.537 Deg F/Decade. See Figure 2. If we start the recent warming period in 1993 (Figure 3), the rate of warming is a little higher at 0.674 Deg F/Decade, but that’s still far less than the warming rate of the early warming period.
Figure 2
######################
Figure 3
Now a question for Hansen and Karl: what’s all the hubbub, bubs? If anything, U.S. temperatures are warming at a slower rate in recent decades compared to the early warming period, even with all of that lovely warm weather last year.
SHAMELESS PLUG
It’s doubtful that Hansen and Karl will mention the fact that the ocean heat content records since 1955 and the satellite-era sea surface temperatures show no evidence of a manmade global warming signal. That is, while they’ve warmed, it’s blatantly obvious that Mother Nature was responsible for the warming. Since they won’t raise that topic, I will.
I’ve recently published my e-book (pdf) about the phenomena called El Niño and La Niña. It’s titled Who Turned on the Heat? with the subtitle The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño Southern Oscillation. It is intended for persons (with or without technical backgrounds) interested in learning about El Niño and La Niña events and in understanding the natural causes of the warming of our global oceans for the past 31 years. Because land surface air temperatures simply exaggerate the natural warming of the global oceans over annual and multidecadal time periods, the vast majority of the warming taking place on land is natural as well. The book is the product of years of research of the satellite-era sea surface temperature data that’s available to the public via the internet. It presents how the data accounts for its warming—and there are no indications the warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. None at all.
Who Turned on the Heat? was introduced in the blog post Everything You Every Wanted to Know about El Niño and La Niña… …Well Just about Everything. The Free Preview includes the Table of Contents; the Introduction; the beginning of Section 1, with the cartoon-like illustrations; the discussion About the Cover; and the Closing.
Please buy a copy. (Paypal or Credit/Debit Card). It’s only US$8.00.
You’re probably asking yourself why you should spend $8.00 for a book written by an independent climate researcher. There aren’t many independent researchers investigating El Niño-Southern Oscillation or its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures. In fact, if you were to perform a Google image search of NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies, the vast majority of the graphs and images are from my blog posts. Try it. Cut and paste NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies into Google. Click over to images and start counting the number of times you see Bob Tisdale.
By independent I mean I am not employed in a research or academic position; I’m not obligated to publish results that encourage future funding for my research—that is, my research is not agenda-driven. I’m a retiree, a pensioner. The only funding I receive is from book sales and donations at my blog. Also, I’m independent inasmuch as I’m not tied to consensus opinions so that my findings will pass through the gauntlet of peer-review gatekeepers. Truth be told, it’s unlikely the results of my research would pass through that gauntlet because the satellite-era sea surface temperature data contradicts the tenets of the consensus.
SOURCE
Contiguous U.S. land surface air data is available in Table form through the NOAA/NCDC webpage here.



English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, yet a negative PDO was evident at this time.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/800px-PDO1000yrsvg_zpsa0c71d41.png
There was though a high sunspot count.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/sunspots_zpsbbbb4912.jpg
vukcevic says:
“At the moment UK has been hit by cold spell. The weather-man suspect the Sudden Stratospheric Warming.”
It’s called winter.
Baa Humbug says: “Should the trend label on fig3 be 1993-2012?”
Yup. Thanks. I just fixed it on the cross post at my blog:
lgl says: “HadISST1”
What base years did you use for the HADISST-based NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies and what’s the scaling factor?
Box of Rocks says: “Out of curiosity where did data for figures 2 & 3 come from. The temps for the time period 2000 – present don’t look right.”
The data is available in table form from the NOAA/NCDC website here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Your trends start at 1895. I assume that’s because a standard was established and/or there were enough records to say that they represent the contiguous US.
I wonder how many records there are that are older even if they don’t give a complete record?
Here’s the link to the info I’ve pasted here. (Notice that 5 of the top ten warmest years for Cincinnati Ohio were before 1895.)
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/climo/summaries/warm2012.php
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WILMINGTON OH
1136 AM EST TUE JAN 1 2013
…2012 ONE OF THE WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD…
THE YEAR 2012 BEGAN ON THE MILD SIDE WITH AVERAGE WINTER TEMPERATURES
FINISHING SEVERAL DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL. SPRING 2012 CAME TO AN END AS
THE WARMEST SPRING ON RECORD AT ALL THREE OF OUR CLIMATE STATIONS.
SUMMER 2012 ALSO FINISHED WARMER THAN NORMAL…FEATURING DOZENS OF
DAYS AT OR ABOVE 90 DEGREES AND EVEN A HANDFUL OF DAYS HITTING 100
DEGREES OR HIGHER…THE MOST THE AREA HAS SEEN SINCE THE HOT AND DRY
SUMMER OF 1988. DESPITE A COOLER THAN NORMAL FALL SEASON…THE MONTH
OF DECEMBER FINISHED SUFFICIENTLY WARMER THAN NORMAL TO MAKE 2012 ONE
OF THE WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD.
*********************************************************************
TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD
CINCINNATI COLUMBUS DAYTON
1. 58.1 / 1881 1. 56.6 / 2012* 1. 56.2 / 1921
2. 57.3 / 1882 2. 56.4 / 1998 2. 56.0 / 1931
3. 57.2 / 1913 3. 55.5 / 1931 3. 55.5 / 1946
57.2 / 1874 4. 55.4 / 1991 4. 55.3 / 2012*
5. 57.1 / 2012* 55.4 / 1921 5. 55.2 / 1998
57.1 / 1921 6. 55.3 / 1938 6. 55.1 / 1938
57.1 / 1878 7. 55.0 / 2007 7. 54.7 / 1944
8. 57.0 / 1880 55.0 / 1946 54.7 / 1939
9. 56.9 / 1931 9. 54.9 / 1999 9. 54.6 / 1896
10. 56.8 / 1911 54.9 / 1939 10. 54.5 / 1922
NORMAL: 54.1 NORMAL: 53.0 NORMAL: 52.1
THE YEAR 2012 FINISHED AS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD FOR COLUMBUS
SINCE COMPLETE ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS BEGAN THERE IN 1879. FOR
DAYTON…IT WAS THE 4TH WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD SINCE COMPLETE ANNUAL
TEMPERATURE RECORDS BEGAN THERE IN 1896. AND FOR CINCINNATI…2012
TIED FOR THE 5TH WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD SINCE COMPLETE ANNUAL
TEMPERATURE RECORDS BEGAN THERE IN 1873.
*********************************************************************
2012 DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND HAS NOT UNDERGONE FINAL QUALITY CONTROL
BY THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER (NCDC).
higley7 says:
January 15, 2013 at 7:02 am
So, is this the data after value has been added? It is hard to believe that 2012 was at all warmer than 1938
I’m with higley7. Certainly the Texas panhandle area of 2012 can’t be compared to 1936-38.
The temperature records as used create artefacts of apparent warming when they show nighttime warming equal to daytime warming. Numerically the same, practically different. As we all understand.
There is a lot of mathematical correctness being used to mislead us. Tornado numbers, adding GIA into sea-level rise. Others.
I arrived in Calgary in Feb. 1979, thought I was in the Promised Land: a chinook got rid of a cold spell and the warmth continued into summer. Feb 28th and I’m in shorts and a T-shirt. Hardly any rain, none to ruin our outdoor fun. Then I found we were in a drought, ended in the late 80s. But I wonder what that weather would be “blamed on” today.
There is a chinook today. Last week it was -15C, today is +3C. I’ll be listening for the “weird” weather that CO2 has caused.
OOPS!
The list didn’t paste as columns. But the link should show them as such.
Bob Tisdale says:
“Not sure what you’re trying to show with the graph, but I only deal with satellite-era sea surface temperatures. That’s the time period the IPCC says that only greenhouse gases can explain the warming.”
Dear Bob, you can easily extend your analysis to 1900. For example, adequate reconstruction of HadSST2 temperatures of tropics (30S-30N) by linear regression could be achieved by consideration only 3 factors – ENSO (Nino34 index from HadSST2), volcanoes (global Optical Thickness at 550 nm, from NASA/GISS) and climate regime shifts in 1925/1926 and 1987.
Calculations are in this simple Excel file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tko1zqal92mmwkp/Tropical%20SST%20with%20shift.xls
Correlation coefficient for monthly mean time series – 0.86! Another remarkable moment is that coefficients of linear regression can be fitted by small amount of data – for example, from 1910 till 1940, for adequate reconstruction of the whole period.
Reality of climate regime shifts in 1925/1926 and 1987 is proved by many independent studies that are summarized in our preprint: http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0172
If you look at 20 year periods starting in any year, the linear rate of warming for those 20 year periods is pretty variable, but the highest rate of warming is for periods ending in the mid 1930s.
However, once you look at periods of 35+ years, then the greatest warming is for the period ending now.
So you could say that there were more rapid short warmings in the past, but todays warming is more sustained.
Arbitrarily choosing the start and end dates of the analyses along with comparing time periods of different length invalidates the conclusions of this post. There are far more statistically robust methods that could have been used. One wonders why they weren’t.
After correcting for UHI (92% inflated trends 1979-2008), 2012 would be around 53.2 deg, well below the 1934 record. And the UHI increase from 1934-1979 is not yet included.
Surely this is a joke?
Your trend for the early period is computed from either 18 or 16 years (the text and figures disagree), but you compute trends for the late period for a longer year.
If you’d listened to any of the arguments about recent changes in global temperature you would know that noise int he temperature record can have a big effect on short period trends, so it’s not surprising that you can find a short period early in the record that has a higher trend than a long period late in the record.
That is just what you’d expect from a basic understanding of statistics. It’s why sample sizes are important.
Why don’t you do some proper trend analysis and then see what that says?
vukcevik,
I looked at your link and the stratosphere warming that you attribute to a huge flow of warm air from the pacific, if this is true it is a huge dump of heat into space. With the sun slumbering and La Nina kicking back in this could mean some serious global cooling? What is your take on this.?
I’m sorry Bob you draw a couple of simplistic lines through arbitrary choose points and come to a conclusion, is that joke??? Is that what passes for “analysis” these days, if I were you I’d ask to remove this post as it really undermines your credibility.
Hi Wayne
I am not in any way en expert on the SSW effect on the cooling. About two years ago I noticed that SSW (which occurs only in the winters) appears to coincide with the Kamchatka volcanic eruptions. Interesting fact is that the SSW events are very rare in the South Hemisphere, only one in the last 30 years. Heat from the ocean escaping into stratosphere may be of some interest but density of the stratosphere is very, very low.
Maybe someone else more knowledgeable would like to comment. Here is the link again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSW2012-13.htm
If you were being hyper-critical, you could argue that the early 20th century warming was ‘only’ for 17 years, so a better comparison might be a 19th century warming period, which would be equally as long as the modern one.
Any data on 19th century warming rates available?
It appears that some vistors here have stopped off at Tamino’s and have chosen to believe Tamino’s sleight of hand. I’ve replied to his post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/yet-even-more-sleight-of-hand-from-tamino/
Have a nice day.
misfratz says:January 15, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Surely this is a joke?
The joke is the reduced rate of warming in the second sample that is Thermageddonally® charged with CO2.
MorningGuy, look up linear regression.
Bob
What base years did you use for the HADISST-based NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies and what’s the scaling factor?
My Nino3.4 running sum is also detrended. Some dataset(s) show weak negative trend, others weak positive so it doesn’t matter. For this purpose (running sum) we must assume a no-trend. Otherwise you end up claiming global warming is caused by Nino3.4 warming which would probably be caused by global warming, i.e global warming is caused by global warming. (and I’m talking 60 yrs+ )
Scaling also does not matter. The shape is the important, so I used ‘scale-to-fit’ factor.
lgl: Thanks for the update. Now back to your original comment, which was, “and there are no indications the 0.7 C warming since 1880 was caused by ENSO,
http://virakkraft.com/Hadcrut4-Nino34-detrended.png”
Are you falling into the trap of assuming the ENSO index represents the process of ENSO? It doesn’t.
NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies only represent the impacts of ENSO on the temperature of the NINO3.4 region. They do not account the warm water remaining (the leftovers) from the ENSO events:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/
Bob,
No I’m not. I agree it seems likely there is an integrating effect creating the ~60 yrs cycle, but if there is no trend in ENSO since 1880 I see no reason to believe ENSO would drive temp higher and higher ‘forever’.
I suspect the normal situation is warming in steps, like you say, and slow cooling. GHGs don’t change the warming much but they slow down the cooling. If so then the flat trends between major Ninos do not mean “no man made warming”. They could mean “man made reduced cooling”. Just a thought, no evidence 🙂
[snip. Calm down, don’t label others “deniers”, follow the site Policy, and you will get your comment approved. — mod.]
OK, Bob, this retired pension-dependant finally coughed up the $8. Because you deserve it.
Long may the Warming, if any, continue! Max CO2 output would be appreciated, too. Thanks, BRIC!