USCRN Shows Slight Warming in 2015

Subtitle:  El Niño Warmed Even the Pristine Sites

The US Climate Reference Network, USCRN, is the focus of my efforts to track continental US atmospheric (near-surface) temperature trends, as published earlier (see link) for the decade 2005-2014, inclusive.  This network of temperature measuring stations is far from cities, factories, and other artificial warming (or cooling) effects; they are located in sufficiently pristine areas that human influences are non-existent or negligible.  

Continental US Temperature Trends 2005-2015
source: NOAA and USCRN 

The year 2015 was, of course, one in which an unusually strong El Niño occurred.  The El Niño was expected to increase surface temperatures across the US as it also warmed much of the Pacific Ocean surface.   

The adjacent chart shows (in orange) the resulting temperature anomalies for what I refer to as the USCRN 55, for the 55 locations that have data that extends back to January 2005.   Note that the USCRN stations are relatively new and many of the stations came on-line in more recent years.   It is inappropriate to include short-duration records with those of longer durations, as it skews the results. 

The chart also shows (in blue) the temperature anomalies from NOAA's "climate at a glance" web site, see link,    It can be seen that both sets of anomalies closely correspond, but there are some significant differences. 

First, the similarities.  Both show a warming for 2015, as expected from the El Niño.  However, the 2015 result is not the warmest, as 2012 was warmer.   The anomalies are essentially identical for the years 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012. 2013, and 2014.  

Next, the differences.  It can be seen that the NOAA data are somewhat greater for the five years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2015. 

This is exactly what I, and many like-minded people have stated all along: the NOAA data shows warmer results when compared to the pristine, USCRN results.   This is certainly true for the brief period for which the USCRN has data.  What is also true is the NOAA data is consistently cooler in prior decades as a result of systematic adjustments.  

A note on the NOAA data, from their website:  "Data for the Contiguous U.S., statewide, Climate Divisions, Climate Regions, National Weather Service Regions, and Agricultural Belts come from the U.S. Climate Divisional Database, which have data from 1895 to the present."  This has the data from thousands of US locations, as adjusted by NOAA.  

Future results are very likely to show a cooling, and a rapid cooling as the El Niño converts into the La Niña mode.    What is known from recent history is the small sunspot cycle Number 20 peaked in approximately 1970 at 100 sunspots.   As that cycle came to its minimum, very cold winters occurred in 1977, 1978, and 1979. (see below for typical description of those winters)  Presently, sunspot cycle Number 24 is also trending down after its peak of approximately 95 sunspots. 

"For the first time since modern weather records began in the 1880s, a third consecutive
severe winter occurred in Illinois in 1978-1979. Seventeen major winter storms, the state's
record coldest January-February, and record snow depths on the ground gave the winter
of 1978-1979 a rank as the second worst statewide for Illinois, exceeded only by the prior
winter of 1977-1978 (18 storms, coldest statewide December-March, record longest lasting
snow cover). In the northern fourth of Illinois, 1978-1979 was the worst winter on
record.

Severe storms began in late November and extended into March; the seven major storms
in January set a new record high for the month, the four in February tied the previous
record, and the four in December fell one short of the record. Fourteen storms also had
freezing rain, but ice was moderately severe in only two cases. High wind and blizzard
conditions occurred in only three storms (compared with eight in prior winter), suggesting
a lack of extremely deep low pressure centers. Most storms occurred with Texas lows,
Colorado (north track) lows, and miscellaneous synoptic conditions. The super storm of
11-14 January set a point snow record of 24 inches, left snow cover of more than 3 inches
over 77% of the state, and lasted 56 hours.

Snowfall for the 1978-1979 winter averaged 68 inches (38 inches above normal) in
northern Illinois, 40 inches (20 above) in the north central part, 32 inches (12 above) in
south central Illinois, and 31 inches (22 above) in southern Illinois. Record totals of 60 to
100 inches occurred in northern Illinois. The winter temperatures averaged 7.8 F below
normal in northern Illinois and about 7 below in the rest of the state. January-February
temperatures averaged a record low of 15.9 F, 14 degrees below normal, and prevented
melting between storms so that record snow depths of more than 40 inches occurred in 
northern Illinois."  -- Illinois State Water Survey, 1980 "Illinois Third Consecutive Severe Winter: 1978-1979," by Changnon, Changnon, and Stone. 

The USCRN pristine sites are the ones to track.  There is no need for adjustments to that data.   The pristine sites are very likely to show substantial cooling in the coming years as El Niño fades, the sunspot cycles weaken, and any carbon dioxide in the air simply fails to deliver the warming that False-Alarmists claim.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

NOAA Claims 2015 Hottest On Record - Wrong

Subtitle: US Pristine Areas Show No Warming Trend

This being mid-January, it is the time when summaries of last year are announced.  NOAA, via the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) announced this week that 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded when both land and ocean records are considered.  Well, that may be true, given the false and misleading data that is in their database, and all the adjustments to that data.   This post shows some of why the NCDC conclusion is not valid.   In short, the land temperature data for the US from pristine areas, the USCRN data, shows a cooling trend since 2004 and 2015 is far from the warmest in that data.   What NCDC includes, wrongly, is data from known warming locations such as cities and other sites where artificial warming occurs.   In addition, 2015 was the warming phase of an El Niño, so ocean temperatures are temporarily a bit warmer than usual.  

As written before on SLB, (see link  to "Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases,") the cities are warming, have warmed, and will continue to warm no matter what provides the electricity, heating energy, and transportation energy to them.  The simple facts of a great amount of heat being dissipated in a relatively small area creates a heat bubble.   More population in cities over time creates an even greater heat bubble.   It is a simple, but stark fact that even if all electricity on the planet were from hydroelectric dams, a source that creates zero carbon dioxide, CO2, and every vehicle was electric, plus all energy used in the cities was electricity, the warming bubble would still exist.  For False-Alarmists to conclude that CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduce to prevent catastrophic global warming is simply false.  Even if CO2 production ceased 200 years ago, the temperatures as measured by NCDC would still show a warming trend.  

From the NCDC website (see link),

"The January–December map of temperature anomalies shows that warmer-than-average temperatures occurred across the vast majority of the globe during 2015, combining to bring overall record warmth for 2015, at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average. This easily surpasses the previous record set just last year by 0.16°C (0.29°F). The global temperatures were strongly influenced by the strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year. The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both much lower than the 2015 temperature."

2015    0.90 deg C above average
2014    0.74
1998    0.63
1997    0.51

Here is the map that NCDC refers to in the first sentence.  This shows land and ocean by different colors, with cooler in blue and warmer in red.  

from NCDC website 23 January 2016

It is notable that NCDC did not mention, that I could locate, the cooling (blue areas) in the eastern Canada, southern Greenland, and north Atlantic areas.   It is a feature of good science to discuss the contrary data that is opposite to one's conclusions.   A valid reason should be put forth for why the contrary data exists.  Only a few hundred miles apart, eastern Canada is cooling, while the remainder of Canada was hotter than normal.  Also, the map above shows the western Atlantic Ocean hotter than normal, while the north Atlantic is much colder.   Yet, we know the Gulf Stream carries warm water north and a bit east across those same areas.    Similarly, the region around Japan is colder, yet surrounding areas are warmer.   No mention of these differences.  

While this will be covered in more detail in a future post at SLB, the USCRN data for 2015 from pristine sites shows no warming trend for the contiguous states for the relatively short period (11 years) of the USCRN data. 

Conclusion

The fact is, and has been for a long time, that the official keepers of the temperature records reach their conclusions of alarming, rising temperature trends by over-inclusion of data that has no business being included in such temperature databases.   To put it in the simple vernacular, "Cities gonna warm."   Also, fact-finding and analysis of temperature-measurement sites in the US show that most of the sites also have artificial heating and are not measuring what they are intended to measure.   The was recognized a bit more than a decade ago and resulted in the creation of measuring instruments in pristine areas, the USCRN sites that are far from human influences such as cities, power plants, and asphalt parking lots.   NCDC and NOAA's problem is that the USCRN data is only a decade long, perhaps a bit longer for the oldest sites.  The USCRN data is not global, being limited only to the USA.   SLB has a post on the first decade results from USCRN, see link.   The results for that decade, 2005-2014 (inclusive) show a pronounced cooling in the contiguous US, with a severe cooling trend for winters.   A short record, of only ten years, is subject to pronounced end-point effects.  We can expect that additional years may change the trend a bit until a longer period exists.   An update to that USCRN post is imminent, likely in early March 2016 when the data for the full winter 2016 is available. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved.   

Watts et al Show Some Warming is Man-Made

Subtitle: Man-made Warming by Selecting Bad Temperature Sites

In this post, a new study (2015) by Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, John Nielsen-Gammon, and Dr. John Christy is discussed.  The Watts 2015 study showed that the USA's temperature trend over 30 years (1979 - 2008) as measured by the US Historic Climate Network stations was too high due to inclusion of temperature measuring sites that had and have artificial heating.  Watts 2015 showed that when only properly sited measurement stations are included in the data, the warming trend decreased substantially (2.0 degrees C per century without the "bad" stations, and 3.2 degrees C per century with.)    see link to Watts' article announcing the study, which was presented this week at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, California. 

Other blogs have articles that discuss the Watts 2015 paper, some with thoughtful comments and of course the usual jibber-jabber.  Dr. Judith Curry's blog article is here, see link.  JoAnne Nova's blog article is here, see link.  Bishop Hill's blog article is here, see link.   The Chiefio (E.M. Smith) is away from keyboard (AFK) performing new grandpa duties, but his take is sure to be interesting, perhaps fascinating.  See link to Chiefio's blog.   This will update to link to his article (If) when it is published.    OK.  So, that is what some of the others are writing or have written.   Why should I write anything on this?

This is a good time and place to set out why I write on climate, and my qualifications.  I have written much of this before, and said this in various public speeches.   I am a chemical engineer and an attorney practicing in Science and Technology Law.  As a chemical engineer, especially one that deals with petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, toxic chemical plants such as chlorine-caustic, and chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, liquid anhydrous ammonia, and highly explosive trade-secret reaction initiators (to name a few), I am acutely aware of the need to use only good, valid data and to screen and exclude invalid data.   In short, if chemical engineers fail to find and exclude invalid data, our chemical processes will leak, spew toxic chemicals, catch fire, explode, and create serious harm and death.   We take the data analysis aspect of engineering very seriously, because we must.  

As an attorney, I watch the climate science, and some scientists in that arena, with great dismay.  There have been many regulations established already (e.g. California AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006"), multi-lateral treaties (Kyoto Protocol 1997), and non-binding climate agreements (Paris 2015).  This is merely a partial list of government acts concerned with climate science.   It is instructive that governments require science-based regulations to be based on good science, or best available science.  What, exactly, qualifies as best available science is a substantial part of the problem.  

The pedigree of the scientists and the scientific organization matters.  In the USA, NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is the federal agency that is supposed to not only know what it is doing, but doing their function at the highest level of expertise and accuracy.  In pertinent part, NOAA's mission statement reads: "(NOAA's Mission is) To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, . . ."   NOAA's home page on the website goes on to state: 

 "NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.

NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then, NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international leader on scientific and environmental matters."   (bold, underline added - RES)

NOAA, then, is the expert, the professional, the go-to agency that not only monitors the climate, but makes sense out of the data and presents trends and conclusions for decision-makers.   One would expect, then, that their results can be trusted.   Yet, they cannot. 

In a nutshell, what Watts 2015 did was attempt to analyze 30 years of temperature data from NOAA's measuring stations located across the USA, with the express purpose of identifying bad stations and excluding them from the data.   The measuring stations comprise 1218 weather stations in the USHCN, the Historical Climate Network, which were critically examined by Watts and others for allocation into 5 categories of Excellent to Incredibly Bad (my terminology, not theirs).  Actually, Category 1 is best, and 5 is worst.   Watts 2015 focused their attention on the two top categories, 1 and 2.     Examples of the differences between a 1 and a 5 are: a 1 is in an open grass field a safe distance from any artificial heat source, while a 5 can be on an asphalt parking lot adjacent to a dark brick building and in the path of an air conditioner condenser exhaust. 

Watts 2015 apparently included both Category 1 and 2 as producing acceptable temperatures, excluding all Category 3, 4, and 5.  Note, however, that NOAA includes all the stations, with various corrections applied as they see as appropriate.  But, Watts 2015 went further, they excluded many stations in Category 1 and 2 due to issues such as non-continuous location (somebody physically moved the station over the years, as happened here in Los Angeles a few years ago).  Watts 2015 also excluded stations that had corrections for Time of Observation, and any stations that had an equipment change over the years.   Watts 2015 was left with 410 stations that met their criteria, or approximately one-third of the 1,218 total stations. 

(Note:  a concern arises at this point.  Referring to the Fall et al 2011 paper that also was co-authored by Watts, Jones, Nielsen-Gammon, and Christy, the USHCN is purported to have 1221 stations, not 1218.  Also, from Figure 1 of Fall 2011, the Category 1 and 2 stations combined are 7.9 percent of 1007 stations that were surveyed for critical assessment and placement into the 5 categories.  Some simple math shows that something does not add up.    It appears that 80 stations out of the 1007 represents 7.9 percent.   Even allowing for all of the remaining, un-surveyed stations to wind up in Category 1 or 2, (highly unlikely), that yields 1221 minus 1007, or 214 stations that can be added to the 80 from above.   That provides only 294 stations at most.  Where, then, did Watts 2015 obtain 410 stations in Category 1 and 2?   I hope to find an answer to this simple math question.   It appears that Watts 2015 excluded some of the Category 1 and 2 stations based on this statement from Watts on WUWT: "It should be noted that many of the USHCN stations we excluded that had station moves, equipment changes, TOBs changes, etc that were not suitable  had lower trends that would have bolstered our conclusions."  Therefore, if 294 were available at most, but some were excluded, how did Watts 2015 end up with 410 valid, Category 1 or 2 stations? )

Now to the second point: end-point influences.    Watts 2015 chose the time period for analysis to be 1979 to and including 2008.  The reason given for this time period is that this paper is designed to challenge and rebut the conclusions produced in two other papers, Menne et al 2009, and 2010.  The Menne papers were written purportedly to defend NOAA's methodology for including badly-sited stations, correcting the measured temperatures, and including those temperatures in the database and analysis.   As Watts wrote on his blog (see link above):  

"Some might wonder why we have a 1979-2008 comparison when this is 2015. The reason is so that this speaks to Menne et al. 2009 and 2010, papers launched by NOAA/NCDC to defend their adjustment methods for the USCHN (should be USHCN - RES) from criticisms I had launched about the quality of the surface temperature record, such as this book in 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? This sent NOAA/NCDC into a tizzy, and they responded with a hasty and ghost written flyer they circulated. In our paper, we extend the comparisons to the current USHCN dataset as well as the 1979-2008 comparison."

As written several times on SLB, there is a problem with any study that uses the late 1970s as a starting point for a time-series trend of air temperatures, and extending that trend to claim the climate is warming.   I wrote on this back in February 2010, and spoke on this in a public speech to chemical engineers in 2012.   The USA had severe winters in the period 1977, 78, and 79 as documented in many articles at the time  (see link for one such article), and shown in temperature graphs from many US cities (see link).    One such temperature graph is shown below to illustrate, this is from Abilene, Texas and the Hadley Climate Research Center HadCRUT3 dataset:

The significant portion of this Abilene graph is the cluster of low temperatures around 1977, 78, and 79.   When any data set starts with a very low value, and the remaining data oscillates around with very little trend, the resulting trend will be upward.

(A side note on severity of the winter of 1978-1979 in Illinois, excerpted from the linked article above:

"For the first time since modern weather records began in the 1880s, a third consecutive
severe winter occurred in Illinois in 1978-1979. Seventeen major winter storms, the state's
record coldest January-February, and record snow depths on the ground gave the winter
of 1978-1979 a rank as the second worst statewide for Illinois, exceeded only by the prior
winter of 1977-1978 (18 storms, coldest statewide December-March, record longest lasting
snow cover). In the northern fourth of Illinois, 1978-1979 was the worst winter on
record.

Severe storms began in late November and extended into March; the seven major storms
in January set a new record high for the month, the four in February tied the previous
record, and the four in December fell one short of the record. Fourteen storms also had
freezing rain, but ice was moderately severe in only two cases. High wind and blizzard
conditions occurred in only three storms (compared with eight in prior winter), suggesting
a lack of extremely deep low pressure centers. Most storms occurred with Texas lows,
Colorado (north track) lows, and miscellaneous synoptic conditions. The super storm of
11-14 January set a point snow record of 24 inches, left snow cover of more than 3 inches
over 77% of the state, and lasted 56 hours.

Snowfall for the 1978-1979 winter averaged 68 inches (38 inches above normal) in
northern Illinois, 40 inches (20 above) in the north central part, 32 inches (12 above) in
south central Illinois, and 31 inches (22 above) in southern Illinois. Record totals of 60 to
100 inches occurred in northern Illinois. The winter temperatures averaged 7.8 F below
normal in northern Illinois and about 7 below in the rest of the state. January-February
temperatures averaged a record low of 15.9 F, 14 degrees below normal, and prevented
melting between storms so that record snow depths of more than 40 inches occurred in

northern Illinois." )


The Watts 2015 study should not, in my opinion, be judged as conclusive on the issue of warming occurred at the rate of 2 degrees C per century.   The starting point of 1979 is low due to severe winters in that time. 

Therefore, it can be concluded that Watts 2015 can be commended for showing the NOAA methodology overstates the warming by 60 percent (3.2 degrees versus 2.0 degrees per century.)   A necessary next step is to do what I have recommended for years (not only I, as others have also noted this and stated the obvious): find temperature records from the pristine areas across the USA, in national parks and other undisturbed areas.   Use those records.   It may be that such records do not exist, and that may be why so much effort is expended as Watts 2015 did, also Fall 2011.    However, it would seem to be a trivial task to obtain small-town newspaper archives and collect the published temperatures from across America back 100 years.   

Finally, it is certainly misleading, and quite possibly fraudulent, to make claims of global warming by analyzing data that begins with the late 1970s.   One could do worse, however, by starting the data in 1977 (that gives 3 years of low temperatures to start), and end the data on a high-temperature year such as 2000 (that gives 2 years of high temperatures to end on.)    Note that fraud in the legal context has many elements that must be proven, one of which is intent to obtain property from another.  No assertion of fraud is made, nor to be implied, against any of the authors nor organizations mentioned in this article.   Instead, Watts and co-authors, and Menne and co-authors were probably doing the best they know how, given the motivations and constraints at the time.    It is also noteworthy that the entire Watts 2015 paper has not been published yet, and all comments above are based on my best understanding of what is published on WattsUpWithThat.  

We must, however, do better.  There must be no data adjustments, no room for bias, and no end-point issues as described above.   Watts 2015 apparently tried to find unadjusted data, even though it is unclear how 410 stations exist in 2015 while only 80 or so existed in 2011. 

Next, we must have a study that shows what warming, or cooling, if any, occurs in pristine locations without any starting and ending data issues.   Such data is slowly being produced via the USCRN stations, (Climate Reference Network) see link. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

US In A Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder

Subtitle: USCRN Temperatures Are Declining Rapidly 

Abstract

An analysis of atmospheric temperature data from 55 pristine United States locations show a pronounced annual cooling trend of minus 2.68 degrees Celsius per century over the ten-year period 2005-2014.   The Winter cooling trend for the 55 locations is much greater at minus 10.86 degrees Celsius per century.   The region with the most rapid Winter cooling is the MidWest and Northern Plains at minus 23.1 degrees Celsius per century.  All regions have a cooling for Winter months.  All regions but one, the West and Mountains, also have a pronounced annual cooling.  

Data Source

Data for this study were obtained from United States Climate Reference Network, USCRN   see link .   This is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Climate Data Center. 

Map of USCRN Stations and view of a typical station

From NOAA’s website:  “The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a system of climate observing stations developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The USCRN's primary goal is to provide long-term temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture and temperature observations that are of high quality and are taken in stable settings.”  At this time, “the network consists of 114 commissioned stations in the contiguous United States, 16 stations in Alaska (with a plan to eventually have a total of 29), and 2 stations in Hawaii.”  As an aside, there are a surprising number of stations located in Alabama, with 20 at this time.   Meanwhile, Mississippi has only two, and Arkansas has only one station.  Tennessee has one station.   One wonders what could possibly justify placing 20 stations in Alabama.   Also, there are 24 stations in New Mexico, and again one wonders what could be the justification.   Utah has 19 stations, while Wisconsin has only one.  

By “stable settings,” NOAA means that the locations are far from human warming influences such as cities, airports, and industries, and are expected to not have their present conditions change over the next several decades.    The stations have automatic sensors, redundancy, and automatic data upload to computer databases.   The intent is to have reliable, unbiased data without gaps and relocation issues.
  
The oldest station began operating in July, 2001 in Asheville, North Carolina.   The next-oldest station began operating in January, 2002 in Kingston, Rhode Island.    By December of 2004, 60 stations were operating.  Of those, 55 stations were selected for this study.  

Discussion

Data from United States Climate Reference Network, USCRN, for the decade beginning January, 2005 and ending December, 2014 were analyzed for overall and regional temperature trends.  Monthly average temperatures were used.  The monthly averages were themselves averaged to obtain annual averages.   Annual linear trends were calculated.  Only 55 locations were used in this analysis, because no additional USCRN stations had records extending to or before January, 2005.  Where duplicate stations exist at the same site, only one station of each pair was chosen.   One state, Colorado, has 5 stations of suitable length but these were considered too many for the state’s size.  Therefore, only two of the stations were included in the data set.

In addition to the annual trends, averages and linear trends were determined for Winter months of December, January, and February.  This required obtaining data for December, 2004 for all 55 locations.   Therefore, the span of the data in this analysis is December, 2004 through and including December, 2014. 

Averages and trends for regions were also determined.   Four regions were defined as 1) MidWest and North, 2) South and Southwest, 3) Atlantic, and 4) West and Mountain.  

The intent of the analysis was to look at the data for a recent decade during which other temperature datasets show no increase in global average temperature.  However, other datasets suffer from inclusion of data from urban areas with known urban heat island effects that produce an artificial warming trend.   In contrast, the USCRN stations are purposely located far from such urban heat influences.   It was expected that one of three possible outcomes would emerge: 1) no trend at all, 2) a warming trend, or 3) a cooling trend.    A result showing no trend would be consistent with datasets mentioned above.  A result showing a warming trend would be consistent with the widely-discussed carbon-dioxide Greenhouse Gas hypothesis that allegedly creates an overall warming, or global warming.  (see e.g. the International Panel on Climate Change reports, IPCC)   A result showing a cooling trend would be consistent with falsifying the carbon-dioxide Greenhouse Gas hypothesis, and confirming the impact of natural cycles on global temperatures.  


Results for annual, and Winter months are shown below (see Table 1).  The annual cooling trend for all 55 stations is minus 2.68 degrees C per century.   The trend for Winter months is minus 10.86 degrees C per Century.  A graphical result is shown in Figure 1, above. 

	Annual Average Trend     Degrees Celsius / Century	Winter Months Trend Degrees Celsius / Century  (Dec-Jan-Feb)
All Stations  55	(2.68)	(10.86)
MW and N 15	(11.24)	(23.10)
SO and SW 12	(2.83)	(11.14)
ATL  10	(0.47)	(0.89)
W and MT  18	3.32	(6.03)

Table 1  Summary of Results 2005-2014

It is not surprising that temperature trends from non-urban data show a cooling, when other datasets that include urban areas show no trend over the same period.  It is logical that a zero trend is the result of some data with a warming trend, and off-setting data with a cooling trend.  These USCRN stations show the cooling trend that many have long suspected.

Among these 55 data points, none have exactly zero trend, although Goodwell, OK, is close at minus 0.04 degrees C per Century.    There are five stations, approximately ten percent of the total, that have a trend of less than 1 degree C per Century, positive or negative. Those five stations are located in South Carolina, North Carolina, Washington state, Oklahoma, and upstate New York.  It is noteworthy that none of the almost-zero trend stations are located in the rapidly-cooling North and MidWest region.  

Regional trends 

N and MW Region Winter Trend

The most eye-catching result is the rapid cooling trend for the North and MidWest region, Winter months, of minus 23.1 degrees C per century (see Table 1, and graph).  The annual trend for the same region is also a rapid cooling of minus 11.24 degrees C per century.     The severity of such cooling would be alarming, if the trend were to continue.  The North and MidWest parts of the US are vital to the economy, especially in agriculture and cattle.   Colder and longer winters would prevent farmers from producing the usual crops and yields.   Furthermore, such cooling would prevent snow from melting each Summer, leading to frozen ground and glaciers.   Year-round snow acts to increase the reflection of solar energy, or increased albedo, which leads to cooler temperatures and yet more snow. 

Stations with the most rapidly-cooling trends include:

Sioux Falls, South Dakota  minus 32 degrees C per century

Medorah, North Dakota      minus 31 degrees C per century

Goodridge, Minnesota        minus 30 degrees C per century

Buffalo, South Dakota        minus 28 degrees C per century

Wolf Point, Montana           minus 24 degrees C per century

Criticisms

Critics might point out that not all the available data was used in the analysis, as if that might make the conclusions invalid.   However, it must be understood that over-inclusion of data leads to erroneous conclusions.    For example, including 5 stations for Colorado, but only 3 for California would skew the results in favor of Colorado.  

Another criticism might be the choice of data to replace missing data points.  In this dataset, there were relatively few missing data points.  However, almost every station had one missing data point, with some stations missing two or three data points.   Care was taken to examine the data graphically to ensure the replacement data fell along a smooth curve.  

Critics might also point out that conclusions based on a 10-year analysis of climate temperature data is almost meaningless since climate changes slowly over several decades and centuries.   The author’s response is that valid conclusions can be drawn from a 10-year analysis, especially if the major conclusion is that a serious problem may develop soon, or may already be occurring.   From this analysis, it certainly would be prudent to observe closely the winters for the next few years, especially in the North and MidWest region.  However, all the regions encompassed in this study show a cooling trend for the Winter months of Dec-Jan-Feb.   Only the Atlantic region has a modest Winter cooling trend, which might be due to having only a few stations in that region for this analysis. 

Also, all regions except the West and Mountains show an annual cooling trend.  It is likely that the recent multi-year drought in the West and Mountains are responsible for the slight warming trend.   

Conclusions

The long-term temperature datasets have several known deficiencies, among those are the inclusion of urban heat islands such as large cities.  Those datasets are also adjusted repeatedly, with each new report with adjusted data claimed to be accurate.   In addition, those datasets suffer from many missing data records that require some means to insert data.  They also suffer from disjointed data due to station moves to different locations.   The USCRN data is intended to provide data with none of those deficiencies, being located far from human influences, using state-of-the-art electronic measurement devices, redundant devices, automated data collection and uploading to computers, and not being moved around every few years.    

Goodridge, California temperatures sorted by population

An earlier analysis by James Goodridge found that essentially zero warming occurred in California counties with low population, over an 85-year period from 1909 to 1994.  Yet, counties with high populations experienced warming of almost 2 degrees Celsius per century.   (Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.)   See chart at right (Urban Heat Island Effect)  for the results.

What this present analysis of the USCRN 55 stations shows is that not only are pristine locations not warming, they are actually cooling. 

Regional trends also show substantial cooling.   

While the time period of this study is necessarily short by climate research standards, it is prudent to pay close attention to the northern tier of states in the US, especially the next few winters.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

Hottest July On Record - Misleading

Subtitle:  Bad Data Yields Bad Results 

The US NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) made yet another alarming announcement this week, stating that July, 2015 was the hottest month ever measured, globally.   What they wrote is shown below, then my commentary follows.  Essentially, the keepers of the temperature files have adjusted data, changed data, created data where none exists, dropped temperature records out of the data, and included temperature records that should never be allowed into the data, and done this over and over and over again.  Therefore, it is utterly meaningless when such "warmest ever" statements are made.   Curiously, this past July had the Pacific Ocean in the midst of a very strong El Niño, and that has warmer-than-usual ocean surface temperatures.   Coincidence?  

The quote from NOAA:

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880."  (see link)   Citation is "NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for July 2015, published online August 2015"

Commentary

The NOAA global temperature records are touted as the best, yet one must wonder how good the data is, when it is adjusted not just once, but over and over and over again.  The adjustments are downward for older data, typically starting around 1970.  The downward adjustments make the past cooler, and the present warmer relative to the past.   Such adjustments also create the appearance of a warming trend over time, which can be used to sound the alarm that the climate is changing in a disastrous warming manner. 

When a scientific body, such as NOAA, makes an official pronouncement, many who read that pronouncement actually believe it.  They don't have the training nor education to determine if the conclusion is plausible, is accurate, or instead was the result of poor scientific practice.   

It is one thing to obtain data during research or experimentation, do one's best to verify the data is accurate and suitable for analysis, then perform valid statistical analyses and draw supportable conclusions.   It is quite another to periodically adjust the database and publish yet another conclusion.  The fable of the little boy who cried "Wolf!" comes readily to mind.   Are we to accept the official pronouncement each time, and forget that just a few years ago, these same officials had a different conclusion?  

A second troubling point in the NOAA announcement is the absolute absence of any reference to uncertainty in the data.  A search for the word "error" turns up zero instances.  Zero is the result for the word "uncertain."    However, the older data has more doubt, and in many cases data is completely missing for many areas of the globe.   

Now to the curious timing, the coincidental occurrence of a very strong El Niño.   An El Niño is, by definition, a periodic warming of certain portions of the eastern Pacific Ocean surface near the equator.  This particular El Niño has warmer surface water compared to previous events.   Is it any surprise, then, that the July global temperature computation is warmer than ever before?    NOAA had this to say about the ocean surface temperatures:

 "For the oceans, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest departure not only for July, but for any month on record. The 10 highest monthly departures from average for the oceans have all occurred in the past 16 months (since April 2014)."  (same source as above)

In their usual fashion, NOAA does not mention that "the 10 highest monthly departures from average for the oceans" all coincide with the strongest El Niño ever measured.   Of course the sea surface temperatures will be warmer.   

What would be far, far more interesting is for NOAA to take their huge database and perform the same analysis that Mr. James Goodridge performed in his eye-opening work on temperatures in California. (Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.)   See chart at right (Urban Heat Island Effect)  for the results:  Goodridge found that essentially zero warming occurred in California counties with low population, over an 85-year period from 1909 to 1994.  Yet, counties with high populations experienced warming of almost 2 degrees Celsius per century. 

Conclusion 

It is no surprise that NOAA found this past July to be the warmest in their record.  After all the adjustments to make modern temperatures hotter than past temperatures, inclusion of heat islands to also pump up the warming, and using a record-breaking El Niño for ocean temperatures, the July temperatures should indeed appear warmer than usual.  

Yet, where are the studies that include only pristine, untouched non-urban temperatures?  Surely the vaunted and vast NOAA temperature data has such records.  Why aren't those records analyzed and published?  One could do as Mr. Goodridge did, simply sort the temperature records by county population (or the equivalent in each country) and show the long-term trend.   

The temperature record, as kept and massaged by NOAA, is not at all helpful.  What bears watching, though, are indicia of global cooling.  The northern hemisphere has excellent data records of lake ice, and sea ice in, e.g. Hudson's Bay.    It is significant, and perhaps ominous, that ice on the US Great Lakes is far above the historical average.    

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California 
Copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Brutal Winter of 2015 - Not Over Yet

Subtitle: When will Congressional hearings occur to hold mis-leading scientists accountable?

The winter of 2015 is not yet over, not by a long shot.  The US east coast is having a record year for total snowfall, with one blast of cold air following another. Blizzards have brought major cities to a standstill, with public transportation not operating.  Roofs are collapsing on buildings.   Record cold temperature is reported in many areas (record lows, and in some cases, daily high temperatures that are lower then ever recorded).  (citations: too many to include, future visitors are encouraged to search the internet for Winter 2015)  However, here is one link to a NOAA pdf file that describes conditions on the east coast on February 14-15, 2015 see link.  

The conditions mentioned above are entirely consistent with what I wrote, and discussed in a speech in May of 2015, posted on SLB here, see link.  (note, this article is the second most-viewed post on SLB).   The speech title is "Warmists are Wrong, Cooling Is Coming."   A brief portion of the speech is below, from "Part III: Implications" --

Transportation and industrial output:  this will be huge.  We do not move barges over frozen rivers.  We know this.  When a river is frozen for many months out of the year, how can you get your materials moved?  What about trains or heavy ground transportation; will they work? Probably not. The train is going to cross the Rockies’ grades in the snow and ice?   Likely not.

Industrial output: how does one move materials around?  How do we get raw materials into the factories and the products out?  If we have seen big trucks trying to go up even a small incline during an ice storm, well, they don't.  We can not get trucks to go up or down the Grapevine incline here just north of Los Angeles when snow falls.  Multiply this 1000 times across the northern tier of the United States.


Communications and infrastructure: we know what happens when ice storms or big snowstorms occur.   The system fails.  Why does it fail?  It is due to ice on the lines or tree limbs falling on the lines.  Can you imagine this on the scale something like the Little Ice Age?  We’re going to need serious reconsideration of infrastructure.   

We have seen employers being unable to open their doors because their employees cannot get to work.  Mandatory curfews - stay indoors orders - have been issued.  Light rail transportation systems are stopped; the various parts will not function reliably in the deep snow and cold.  One example cited in Boston is rail switches that cannot be operated reliably.   

Power grids are failing due to high winds, with hurricane-level winds, ice on the lines, and limbs or entire trees smashing into the lines.    City budgets for ice and snow removal are already exhausted.   Simply finding a place to put the snow is a major problem. 

In an unprecedented move (to my knowledge), Boston officials allowed snow to be dumped directly into the Boston harbor - an area previously off-limits due to environmental regulations.  

The nuclear power plant at Plymouth, in Massachusetts, has shut down as a precaution in this storm (Feb. 14, 2015) - but was also shut down in an earlier storm a few days ago when the grid failed.   Plant operators assured everyone that they had plenty of fuel for the emergency generators and the plant was safe.   Well, one would expect them to have sufficient fuel for the diesel generators.

The storms are not finished, either.  Weather predictors show yet another blizzard with very cold air next weekend.  

At some point, currently unknown, the US Congress or Senate will hold hearings to inquire why the prominent climate scientists were so very, very wrong.   It won't be while Obama is president, because he has maintained (many times) that global warming is real and a serious threat.  That is entirely false.  Global warming stopped more than a decade ago and the global cooling has begun. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California USA
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell