An analysis of night time cooling based on NCDC station record data

Guest post by Mike Crow

clip_image002

Figure 1 Night time temperature profile of a clear sky night in NE Ohio. 8:28pm Sunset/6:16am Sunrise

Climate science is all about surface temperature trends. The problem with this is that the CAGW is a rate of cooling problem, not a static temperature problem. Is Co2 changing the rate of cooling, thereby altering the expected surface temperature, are the hypothesized positive feedbacks actually there, are there any actual measurements of these parameters. I think there is. Every night the Sun sets on every location on Earth, and the surface starts to cool by radiating heat into the cold black of space. What can weather station data tell us about this?

clip_image001

Figure 2 Count of NCDC Daily station records by year (2011 is partial year)

The temperature record has daily min and max temperatures. When the Sun comes up in the morning, on most days it warms the surface from the minimum temp of the day peaking late in the afternoon. Then the Sun sets and temperatures start to plummet. I live at 41 N Lat, and on a clear night the temperature will drop 20-30 F (Figure 1), over a degree F per hour. If there’s a CO2 effect in the temperature record, it should show up in night time cooling. The question is, does this loss of cooling actually show up in the data?

I went in search of an answer, I started with NCDC’s global summary of day’s data set which contains over 120 million station records, and starts late 1929. The first thing to notice is how few samples there are each year prior to 1973 (Figure 2).

What I wanted to look at is how much the temperature went up “today”, and how much does it drop “tonight”. Today’s Rising temp is today’s T-max –today’s T-min. Falling temp is today’s T-max – tomorrows T-min, the drop in temp over night. Difference is Rising – Falling.

To do this, you have to have good records for both today and tomorrow, so as part of my data import process, I validate that the temperature records are good. NCDC provides placeholder values for temp, even when the data isn’t available, I trap these and remove them. This leaves me with a set of data as it is from NCDC, augmented with Rise, Fall, and Diff (Figure 3). The NCDC data also contains some station information, Latitude, Longitude, Altitude, Country, and State where appropriate. This allows me to aggregate temperature records by station location, as well as create a google map of the station in a aggregate set. When annual averages are generated, I average the daily values for a particular station, then average the annual values of the collections of stations in the area being examined.

This is where the temperature data would be homogenized. I feel that since temperatures are not linear spatially and the sample size changes so much over time, homogenizing temperature data is basically making up data that doesn’t exist. I understand some might say not doing this creates a bias where the data is over sampled, I feel making up data is worse than bias.

clip_image008

Figure 3 Annual average Min, Max, Rise, Fall and Diff Temperature for all Global Stations Google Map of Locations

After the preprocessing step there are some 109 million daily samples from 1940 to early 2011. A couple of things to note:

· Rise and Fall are almost identical to each other, and they are approximately 18F for the entire period.

· You can see the “AGW” warming signal in the Min/Max temperature records, yet Rise/Fall does not increase at the same pace.

· Diff is very small, and to make it more than a flat line, it is multiplied by a constant (in this case 365).

· Values are erratic for the earlier years that are under sampled.

· One would expect a positive trend in diff if there was a general loss of nightly cooling and there isn’t one.

The data divided up by Latitude (Figures 4-8):

clip_image010

Figure 4 Average temps for Stations > 66.5 Lat

clip_image012

Figure 5 Average temps for Stations >23 and <66.5 Lat: Google Maps for Eastern Stations, Western Stations

clip_image014

Figure 6 Average temps for Stations <23 and >-23 Lat

clip_image016

Figure 7 Average temps for Stations < -23 and > -66.5 Lat

clip_image018

Figure 8 Average temps for Stations < -66.5 Lat

Lastly I ran a report on the Continental US since it has a large number of stations, the graph is just of diff without a multiplier (Figure 9).

clip_image020

Figure 9 Diff for Continental US

I can also generate daily average reports, Here’s the daily average for stations North of 23 Lat 1950 to 2010 Diff * 100 (Figure 10).

clip_image022

Figure 10 Daily diff * 100 1950-2010 for > 23 Lat

When the ratio of Day to night increases, Diff is positive. When the ratio decreases Diff is negative. This is really a graph of temperature response to a change in incoming solar energy. I’ve read comments that said: “Boy it’d be nice to turn the Sun off for a while to measure the response”, will this is the next best thing to doing exactly that. The question I had from this graph, is what’s the slope of changing Diff as the day gets longer (Figure 11), and as the day get shorter (Figure 12)? So I created the following:

clip_image024

Figure 11 May to September cooling rate: Summer slope

clip_image026

Figure 12 November to March warming rate: Winter slope

If you plot out the slope of the daily temperature change for spring to fall and fall to spring you get this (Figure 13).

clip_image028

Figure 13 Slope of Spring to Fall and Fall to Spring temperature response as the length of day changes for >23 Lat

Unfortunately, there isn’t enough data to see if it truly is a ~60-70 year cycle, but it clearly shows that the slope for both the cooling and warming decreased, where the winter warming slope is both larger and changed more than the summer cooling slope. I would expect a Co2 signal to decrease the cooling slope, which we have, I wouldn’t expect it to decrease the warming slope as well.

What would affect both? A change in Orbit or tilt comes to mind, as does a change in Sea Surface Temps, but would SST’s change both? A change in cloud cover might change both.

What will be interesting to see is as we collect more data, does slope continue to go back up, detecting a natural cycle affecting cooling rates.

In any rate, the data shows Rise and Fall being very consistent over the entire data set, where diff seems to be negatively correlated to temperature increases, when it warms up, it cools a little more overnight. Which makes some sense, and if the heat that’s radiated into space is air warmed over warm ocean waters, which then moves over land, it makes even more sense.

Conclusion:

The world wide surface station measured average daily rising temp and falling temp is 17.465460F/17.465673F for the period of 1950 to 2010, not only is the falling temperatures slightly larger than rising temperatures, 17.4F is only 50%-70% of a typical clear sky temperature swing of 25F to 30F, which can be as large as +40F depending on location and humidity.

This shows conclusively that the average night time cooling is not limited by GHG because low humidity clear skies cool far more than the global average. Since recorded Min Max temperatures show no sign of a loss of cooling on a daily basis since at least 1950, even if CO2 has increased the amount of DLR, something else(most likely variablity of clouds) is controlling temperatures. This would seem to eliminate CO2 as the main cause of late 20th century warming.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

110 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 17, 2013 4:45 am

There is another mechanism that drives the nocturnal cooling, new built constructions that cause wind turbulence, this would decrease the rate of forming of the ground inversion at night, while mixing warmer air aloft with the cooling ground boundary layer. This obviously decreases the cooling rate.
So the more vertical constructions, the warmer the night. There was an artical about that.
Andre

Henry Galt
May 17, 2013 4:47 am

“They” haven’t bothered fiddling with this as they possibly thought .. “… no-one will look at this and, if they do, the press wont report it anyway…”
Nice. Thanks Mike.

May 17, 2013 4:48 am

great post, thank you.

Bloke down the pub
May 17, 2013 4:50 am

Interesting approach. Just to be a pedant though, ‘Every night the Sun sets on every location on Earth, and the surface starts to cool by radiating heat into the cold black of space’
It doesn’t set at the poles in summer.

johnmarshall
May 17, 2013 4:51 am

Low humidity skies cool faster than high humidity ones because of the latent heat of condensation of the water. CO2 has no such property at earth conditions so would tend to help cool the surface. (Unless you believe in the GHE).
Deserts heat faster and cool faster, getting hotter and cooler than rainforest at the same latitude.

Gail Combs
May 17, 2013 5:05 am

Excellent.
You might want to include Sleepalot’s find: The temperature response from a total solar eclipse in the desert link

Richard111
May 17, 2013 5:09 am

Good to have this subject getting some attention. Having lived and worked in Namibia and Saudi Arabia and other desert regimes I’ve long been aware of significant night time cooling. Have suggested before that just one thermometer recording minimums in a remote desert region should give a fairly good idea of any long term warming, or not.

Edwin Crockford
May 17, 2013 5:10 am

Agree with ‘Bloke down the pub’ all the mechanisms I have read regarding climate temperature control mechanism seem to have a low latitudes bias. The obvious one is the standard GHE explanation that takes the earth as a flat disc, but many of the non-CO2 controlled ones also suffer from this issue.
I live above 51N, at these latitudes the days vary considerably from winter to summer as does the solar input. The temperature is controlled to large extent by sea temperature and wind direction. (If it blows from the north it is cold, etc.). I am reminded of talking to a friend who had lived in Arizona all his life and thought the idea that the temperature can go UP at night some how quiet bizarre. So I believe that the surface temperature is just a proxy for the prevailing weather and ocean currents. As these can vary over very long periods a 30 year averaging into ‘climate’ does not make sense, this particulary applies to the poles where half of the year there is virtually no direct solar input and most of the heat loss and gain comes from wind and sea.
Interesting though that the dreaded CO2 yet again fails to explain the observed effects.

Kelvin Vaughan
May 17, 2013 5:21 am

Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:05 am
Excellent.
You might want to include Sleepalot’s find: The temperature response from a total solar eclipse in the desert link
Gail
Is it true to say that when the air temperature is hotter than the ground the ground can not radiate it’s heat away?

May 17, 2013 5:29 am

Interesting !
There was a paper from 2006 which claimed nights were getting warmer. This was then featured supposedly showing a “human signature” of AGW in IPCC AR4 see: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html.
The Alexander 2006 paper claimed :
“Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights. Some regions experienced a more than doubling of these indices. This implies a positive shift in the distribution of daily minimum temperature throughout the globe. Daily maximum temperature indices showed similar changes but with smaller magnitudes.”
What they seem to have done was just count the number of times per year the minimum temperature fell within the bottom 10% of a long trem seasonal average. If correct then your result would have also show a similar trend. Apparently it doesn’t.

Rich
May 17, 2013 5:31 am

I just love “hypnotized positive feedbacks”. They can’t help themselves. We’re doomed!

John Slayton
May 17, 2013 5:33 am

“hypnotized” -> “hypothesized”?

Gail Combs
May 17, 2013 5:34 am

Kelvin Vaughan says: May 17, 2013 at 5:21 am
….Is it true to say that when the air temperature is hotter than the ground the ground can not radiate it’s heat away?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you are mixing up the concepts of convection and radiation.
An object that is above absolute zero radiates period. The net energy flux (looking at the macro picture) will be from the hotter to the cooler object. That is what the Second Law of thermo is saying.

May 17, 2013 5:34 am

When I first did this, I was surprised at how equal Rise and Fall were, that was why I did the hemispheric daily runs, looking for seasonable differences, and after see it was really there, was sort of shocked at how close they were. I ran a query (I did this all is sql) where I summed Rise and Fall, they were like 4 million degree’s, and the difference was only like 17.
@Bloke 🙂 How about they just have longish days?
Let me also add, the data was NCDC’s Global Summary of Days set, and if any one wants my code just ask.

May 17, 2013 5:35 am

Oh, and I want to thank Anthony for fixing the “Rubbished” formatting!

Kelvin Vaughan
May 17, 2013 5:41 am

Bloke down the pub says:
May 17, 2013 at 4:50 am
Interesting approach. Just to be a pedant though, ‘Every night the Sun sets on every location on Earth, and the surface starts to cool by radiating heat into the cold black of space’
It doesn’t set at the poles in summer.
It depends on how you define day.

Alan D McIntire
May 17, 2013 5:42 am

” johnmarshall says:
May 17, 2013 at 4:51 am
Low humidity skies cool faster than high humidity ones because of the latent heat of condensation of the water. CO2 has no such property at earth conditions so would tend to help cool the surface. (Unless you believe in the GHE).
Deserts heat faster and cool faster, getting hotter and cooler than rainforest at the same latitude.”
Humid areas have relatively cooler days and warmer nights, with a net overall warming.
John Christy has a study on this here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3627.1
also covered in a previous “Watts Up With That?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/02/13/irrigation-most-likely-to-blame-for-central-california-warming/

Greg Goodman
May 17, 2013 5:43 am

http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
Seems like temperature drives atmospheric CO2 more than the other way around.

Bob Highland
May 17, 2013 5:49 am

Nice work, Mike.
This is a fine way of demonstrating that no additional heat has been trapped in the period analysed, and that the theoretical delayed radiation to space from increased levels of CO2 is a non-issue.
In fact, it is so obvious a test that it’s amazing no one thought of doing it before spending billions on fancy models to try to prove the reverse.
If the small rise in temperature in recent times were the result of “trapped” heat, this should be reflected in reduced cooling overnight, and you have shown that it is not the case.
It will be interesting to see how the warmists try to rationalise this withering piece of evidence.

May 17, 2013 5:50 am

and Rich: you are now getting sleepy…..
@Clive: I’ve seen those reports as well, and you can see it in some of the Min/Max charts, looks the strongest in NH. It seems what they forgot to note is that the Max temps went up almost as much as the Min.
In general this doesn’t explain any temperature increases, and if you look at diff compared to max temp, diff tends to run negative (night time temp drops more than it went up the day before). If I had to guess, I’d agree with Edwin and say it’s driven by winds coming from the Oceans/Seas.

May 17, 2013 5:51 am

Excellent diagnostic approach!

John West
May 17, 2013 5:55 am

“I would expect a Co2 signal to decrease the cooling slope, which we have, I wouldn’t expect it to decrease the warming slope as well.”
Considering a large portion of the Sun’s output is IR, CO2 acting as an insulator (by virtue of indiscriminant re-emission of IR effecting net transfer) there’s no reason it shouldn’t work both ways. Slowing Earth’s cooling as well as slowing the Sun’s warming of the Earth. In other words, any possible enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect could be a wash, making it a little warmer at night and a little cooler during the day.

StuartMcL
May 17, 2013 5:57 am

Kelvin Vaughan says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:41 am
Bloke down the pub says:
May 17, 2013 at 4:50 am
Interesting approach. Just to be a pedant though, ‘Every night the Sun sets on every location on Earth, and the surface starts to cool by radiating heat into the cold black of space’
It doesn’t set at the poles in summer.
It depends on how you define day.
==========================================
No it depends on how you define “night”. 🙂
If night is the period between sunset and sunrise, then the original quote is correct – every night the sub does set on every location – it’s just that nights don’t come once every 24 hours in polar latitudes, they can last for months.

pochas
May 17, 2013 5:58 am

I guess I’ll have to stop saying that the effect of CO2 may be visible as elevated high latitude minimum temperatures. Apparently not.

Kelvin Vaughan
May 17, 2013 6:00 am

Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2013 at 5:34 am
Thanks Gail and Sleepalot.
That graph has given me lots to think about.

1 2 3 5
Verified by MonsterInsights