The Geography of USCRN Average Air Temperature Trends during the 2004-2014 Decade over the Contiguous United States

Guest essay by Samuel I Outcalt

The USCRN monthly average air temperature records were searched for continuous records covering the 2004 to 2014 decade over the contiguous United States. The average values were selected as these averages represented the average of several sensors. The records represent mid-month averages so a simple interpolation algorithm was used to convert the x-axis of plots from continuous months with an initial index value of zero to fractional years [ x = 2004+(1/24) + (x/12) ]. As mid month data was used, the record stream ran from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2015. The graph for Elgin, Arizona is displayed as Figure 1.

clip_image002

Figure 1. The record for Elgin, Arizona.

It was later discovered that Elgin was the only record that could NOT be easily included in within an area of stations having a negative trend during the decade.

The map of the station location slopes in temperature change during the decade is presented as Figure 2.

clip_image004

Figure 2. A map of the average temperature (C) change during the decade. In some cases the station labels were shifted slightly to avoid state border lines and label overlap.

It is apparent that the region between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains is cooling compared to warning regions along the northern sections of both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. It should be noted that in some states with paired station records there is a significant difference in the magnitude of the decade trend. These differences indicate significant site effects especially in the flat agricultural regions in along the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Regions. Some of these variations may have been introduced by downwind crop rotation and increased aerodynamic roughness produced by the rather massive structures use to shield precipitation gauges.

The absolute magnitude of larger decade trends extrapolated to degrees [ C ] / Century far exceeds the magnitude of the approximate 3 to 5 C global warming since 1870. The warming of 3 C / Century was first documented from an analysis of the geothermal profile at Barrow, Alaska. That analysis, which was completed and reported by the Alaskan Branch of the USGS in 1970. The well documented post 1870 warming is considered by some to mark the end of the Little Ice Age and others to be an artifact of the onset of the industrial revolution. If the present decade trends were to extend for a century, the 2104 air temperature contrast between Arco, Idaho and Wolf Point, Montana would be near 20 C.

A precision spatial interpolation of the data due to the lack of records in many areas. Even with a dense network the geographic interpolation algorithm would have to be conditioned by topography. In order to drive home the pattern of the decade trend contrasts a hand drawn border was used to draft Figure 3.

clip_image006

Figure 3. The area with cooling temperatures is shaded light blue.

In Figure 3 the location of Elgin. AZ is indicated (*) but not labeled. The the trend sign boundary would have become too irregular to include it in the cooling area. However, the contrast between it’s value of -0.25 and the nearby value of +0.16 indicate that the trend values in complex terrain are not only conditioned by local site effects by the local topography.

This brief analysis indicates that the areas of warming and cooling display a strong degree of spatial correlation.

However, there are strong indications that the expansive addition of more USCRN stations will produce more complex contrasts by the end of the next decade.

The pronounced mid continent cooling appears to be the product of the increased frequency and/or lowered temperatures of winter Arctic Air invasions. The pronounced warming New England and the Pacific Coast, which extends over most of the Southwest may be traceable of ocean circulation changes.

This short exploration indicates that simple linear regression applied to all the variables supplied by the USCRN data will provide a robust image of the Geography of Modern Climate Change, when applied to the present data over shorter time spans. The calculation requirements are massive when the large number of stations added during this decade is considered. However, this task as well as the design of topography conditioned extrapolation algorithms is well within the capacity of the computers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, now with massive computers at both Boulder and Cheyenne.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 20, 2015 6:03 pm

Whoops, I meant to show up to 2015
http://tinyurl.com/l86b84s
Even so, it’s quite the upset to global warming theory

Reply to  sfx2020
March 21, 2015 1:20 am

Is there a corresponding increase in those areas of North America, Europe, and Asia during Summer? What about the change in those areas over a full year?
Bob Clark

Reply to  Robert Clark
March 21, 2015 8:24 am

Anyone can check any of that, at most anytime.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Just enter the parameters you are asking about. Mostly there is spring/summer warming, with winter cooling, but of course it’s not that simple/

bw
March 20, 2015 9:19 pm

Good to see USCRN data starting to be examined. As already stated, the amount of data are not adequate to show any statistical significance. The first stations only started coming on-line in 2002. There were over 100 stations on-line in 2008, with more being added every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate_Reference_Network
The data from the USCRN should never require any adjustments of any kind.

Reply to  bw
March 22, 2015 4:49 am

When you also take into account the period from the 40’s to 70’s where global temperatures were dropping in which Winters were particularly harsh in the latter portion, the Northern Hemisphere has actually been cooling for most of time AGW theory said it should be warming. The cooling period was certainly larger than the warming period. Does this mean long term the NH is undergoing a cooling?
Based on the evidence that view would be more valid than the AGW view.
Bob Clark

March 20, 2015 10:10 pm

I’m a little late to the party – Herkimer et al around 8:16 am, this is an interesting article from [November] 2014. I have referenced it before, but it looks a lot like what Herkimer posted for the cold spot over NA, along with some hypotheses on why there is a cold spot on the central plains and the eastern coast:
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/13043/burning-questions-about-winter-cold
[NA = North America ? (Not North Atlantic, right?) .mod]

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 21, 2015 10:58 am

Thanks for that. At least some climate scientists are acknowledging that Winter temperatures have been dropping in the Northern Hemisphere. This is very concerning if the trend continues. At present rates, it could lead to Little Ice Age conditions in the Northern Hemisphere in just a few more decades, well before the 100 year timeframe the IPCC warns of harmful effects of AGW.
The article has a link to this report:
Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends.
Judah L. Cohen,1 Jason C. Furtado,1 Mathew Barlow,2 Vladimir A. Alexeev,3
and Jessica E. Cherry3
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L04705, doi:10.1029/2011GL050582, 2012
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf
The first sentence says:
“Current consensus on global climate change predicts
warming trends driven by anthropogenic forcing, with
maximum temperature changes projected in the Northern
Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes during winter.”

So the actual cooling in the NH is in conflict with the theory of AGW. Leading AGW theorists are proposing theories to explain it, but this is ANOTHER area where the consensus predictions of AGW are contradicted by evidence. This fact still has not filtered down into the public discussion on the issue.
Bob Clark

Reply to  Robert Clark
March 21, 2015 11:20 am

I know. But when it does, they will just change the story. In fact, they already have.

March 20, 2015 10:14 pm

Sorry, yes North America. [head slap]
[Not a problem, only recognize that not everyone will be as familiar with your abbreviations as you are. .mod]

herkimer
March 21, 2015 5:15 am

I personally would like to see annual, seasonal and monthly figures of temperatures reported by continent rather than global and hemispheric . We should be more aware to what is happening in our neck of the woods. Berkeley Earth is way ahead of the other temperature data collectors in this approach . It makes little sense for NOAA to report global warming figures for the globe and yet fail to tell Americans year after year that their continent has been cooling and not warming at all for almost 20 yeas now . We should have figures for North America at the minimum. Perhaps dr Spencer could do the same at UAH

Reply to  herkimer
March 21, 2015 5:47 am

herkimer commented

I personally would like to see annual, seasonal and monthly figures of temperatures reported by continent rather than global and hemispheric .

herkimer, I have been working the NCDC’s Global Summary of Days data and have produced daily and annual temp series by continents.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/Continental%20Daily%20Reports%20Ver%202.3.zip/download
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/YearlyContinental_Ver_2.1.zip/download
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/
Straight averages, no infilling, plus I’ve mostly been interested in rate of change in temp, so there’s a lot of that in these reports.

herkimer
Reply to  micro6500
March 21, 2015 10:25 am

Micro 6500
Very interesting work . Have you done a temperature anomaly graph for North America. I could not find it ?

Reply to  herkimer
March 21, 2015 6:16 pm

Have you done a temperature anomaly graph for North America. I could not find it ?

I generate a station anomaly (a difference), day to day change in station temp. You’ll find a MNDIFF day to day min change, MX Diff a day to day max temp change. Plus Yesterday’s Rising temp and Last Night’s Falling temp.
I’ve written about this work here. I have corrected things as time went on, so reverse order is better data wise, Earlier first is better to see what I was attempting to do.

Reply to  micro6500
March 21, 2015 11:04 am

BTW, I wonder if the claimed high rates of warming in the Arctic is due to the poor coverage there. For instance if there are more weather stations in the western portion of the Arctic then since the western part of North America is experiencing warming while the east cooling, that would give an inaccurate view that there is higher warming overall in the Arctic than there actually is.
How do I find the locations of the weather stations in the Arctic?
Bob Clark

Reply to  herkimer
March 21, 2015 9:12 am

I’ve been looking at just that for some time now.

Reply to  sfx2020
March 21, 2015 11:19 am

Arctic weather stations
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

herkimer
Reply to  herkimer
March 22, 2015 11:29 am

Here is a BERKELEY EARTH source for the historical temperatures for North America. I think their data goes to late 2013 but is being updated to current dates.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/north-america

March 21, 2015 9:45 am
Reply to  sunshinehours1
March 21, 2015 9:46 am

Less people, less “waste” heat. More people, more “waste” heat. .
https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/waste-heat-responsible-for-most-of-northern-hemisphere-warming/
It has nothing to do with CO2.

robinedwards36
March 22, 2015 4:19 am

I remain astonished at the fixation of those who work with climate data, especially temperatures, on linear trends. There is little to suggest that climate, or perhaps any other “natural” phenomenon, has much to do with linearity on almost any scale. We all know this from everyday experience, as has been pointed out in an earlier posting.
Conventional climatologists seem to me to use every available technique to deny the possibility of abrupt change in measured climate parameters. Why should this be? Maybe because the annual average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases effectively in a linear manner, Its forcing properties presumably run in close step with its concentration, therefore step changes in climate are impossible. It follows that only well-behaved models can be contemplated. Thus step changes are ignored, even if they are detected or obvious. Smoothing holds sway and inconvenient observations are soothed away by the unctions of averages and linear trends. Life just isn’t like that. Get real!
A linear fit is just fine if the underlying data on the scale in question are clearly, graphically, linear. Otherwise the trend is merely a convenience, not a serious attempt to deduce anything of real value.

March 22, 2015 7:55 am

“Conventional climatologists seem to me to use every available technique to deny the possibility of abrupt change in measured climate parameters. Why should this be? ”
That is a very good question. Could be an entire topic actually.