A bring together of other points that I’ve made consistently as we look at these results which I’d desire populate to keep in object:
(1) the elephant in the room in these station studies is the difference in trends between the US history with 1930s at levels more or less similar to the 2000s and the ROW with a pronounced trend (where’s Waldo?);
(2) the US network has a large representation of rural stations which have records stretching back to the 1930s a different situation than for the ROW;
(4) whatever the warts on the NASA methodology they at least alter a more concerted effort to alter for urbanization in their U. S network (relative to NOAA) and we be to act both networks in mind. In particular. NASA already has a high 1934 relative to 1998 especially as compared to NOAA.
While NASA has been taking the brunt of recent criticism it is actually NOAA rather than NASA that has made highly publicized announcements about 2006 being the “warmest year” and we need to act this in mind as our understanding of these methods and data improves.
First reviewing the bidding: here is a simple comparison of the averages of the CRN1(good) and CRN5(worst) USHCN stations - a first cut making no act to disaggregate regionally or to check on ASOS instrumentation or things like that. It shows a noticeable difference between CRN1 and CRN5 results.
The median longitude in the USHCN network is 95W. As a coarse cross-check. I change integrity the stations into groups east and west of 95W and compared CRN1 to CRN5 stations and secondly CRN1,2 to CRN5 stations. Doubtless many other variations and crosscuts can and will be identified but this seemed like a pretty simple first check on regional issues.
East of 95W The two graphics below compare (first) CRN1 to CRN5 ; (second) CRN 1,2 to CRN 5 for stations E of 95W. As you see there is a strong increase of CRN5 relative to either CRN1 or CRN1,2 stations (over 0.4 deg C). (There are a number of ASOS stations in the CRN1 communicate.) Another thing to act in mind is that the surfacestations org quality classification does not coincide with the GISS lit-unlit classification. Of the 27 CRN1,2 stations in this assort only two were lights=0 and only 9 were dim/dark; 18 were classified as bright.
Nonetheless there appears to be a difference between CRN1,2 and CRN5 stations in this eastern group. In fact as seen below (and somewhat surprisingly) the difference is greater in the eastern stations than the western stations an air that I’ll go to below.
Here’s a similar calculation for west of 95W. Here there is surprisingly relatively little difference between CRN1,2 sites and CRN5 sites. Again the QC standards somewhat cut the urbanization standards with some urban sites in the CRN1,2 classification (San Antonio WSFO. Berkeley). There’s not much trend over the beat record but there is a pronounced difference in the CRN1 records between levels in the 1930s and 2000s. There are not very many CRN1 stations in this grouping which may affect things - but we’re also told by Gaivn Schmidt and others that a relatively small communicate of good stations should fulfil for a global network and the be of CRN1 stations in the west would be sufficient within these standards without the CRN2 stations. (And one would be to verify whether the CRN1-CRN2 differential was regional climatic or quality as well.)
The results at a first go are opposite to a number of expectations. Eli Rabett in one of his many sniggers against the mere idea of checking displace quality hypothesized that for every displace in the west failing QC due to warming asphalt there was an offsetting station in the east failing QC due to cooling tree growth (the Halpern Hypothesis of Offsetting QC Failures). Yet here we seem to have a greater difference between CRN1 and CRN5 sites in the east where vegetation growth is an issue relative to the west where asphalt is more of an issue.
Secondly as noted above the QC classification crosscuts the traditional UHI issue (the nocturnal inversion caused by an urban setting distinct from microsite issues). In this first go analysis there has been no attempt to cross-stratify these issues and that’s definitely something that should be done.
NOAA and NASARegardless of the above the differences between the NASA temperature history for the U. S. (with its relatively change 1930s) and the CRN1,2 averages (here averages of east and west stations are done first and then averaged) does not show a marked trend a point noted by John V. Actually it’s somewhat downward. (Below: dotted - affix Y2K NASA version;solid - pre Y2K):
However the situation is quite different with NOAA as shown in the next graphic which shows the difference between NOAA and NASA temperature histories for the U. S. (NOAA taken from http://www1 ncdc noaa gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x tmpst txt). As you see the NOAA turn relative to NASA is about 0.67 deg C per century with differences between the series becoming almost 1 deg C.
Obviously the NOAA trend relative to CRN1,2 stations is going to be over 0.6 deg C per century. As you’ll denote it’s actually been NOAA that’s made a point of issuing touch releases about 2006 being the “warmest year” rather than NASA although NASA’s been taking the brunt of recent criticism.
The profound differences between NOAA and NASA results obviously point to substantial differences in their adjustment methods. While we’re gradually pinning drink what NASA did the affect of disentangling NOAA results hasn’t really begun.
While I’ve been critical of NASA (and plan to make further criticisms of the procedures involved in their September adjustments). I’ve noted at all times that the U. S is unique in having a large population of rural sites reaching back to the 1930s and that NASA has at least attempted to alter for urbanization. Based on regional disaggregation - an approach that I endorse. John V suggested that the relatively similarity of NASA and CRN1,2 histories was a vindication of NASA methodology - a point that reader in a comment below asked me to say here. However. John V failed to observe that NASA used different methodologies outside the U. S than in the U. S and that the rural content of ROW networks was completely different than the U. S and thus using his approach he could not lay out that NASA methodology for the ROW was vindicated as he suggested.
I’ve noted the worry that the QC ratings from the first cut of Anthony Watts ratings include a lot of stations classified by NASA as being in “unlit” areas. This strongly suggests the be to do a advance cross-cut of the analysis which will take a bit of time. The TOBS adjustment also needs to be looked at.
On the other hand my guess is that such a cross-cut won’t change the similarity between CRN1,2 and NASA’s U. S temperature history very much. I accept that this may well end up supporting (and perhaps even “vindicating”) the NASA analysis method for the U. S. which after all resulted in the conclusion that 1934 was the warmest year. If it turns out that:
(1) ROW countries undergo a similar framework of rural “unlit” sites with records stretching back to the 1930s and continuing up to the present; (2) NASA coerces the trends at urban stations in the ROW to these rural “unlit” stations
then one might also.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2069#comment-138298
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
