Reading meteo.ru Data

There is an interesting collection of data from 223 Russian stations here mentioned by both Jerry Brennan and myself. These 223 stations are precisely the same as the 223 stations in CDIAC’s NDP048, conveniently listed here . CDIAC NDP-048 includes an extensive discussion of station history.

The versions at meteo.ru typically go to 1995, while NDP048 stops in 1990. The data at meteo.ru is stored in files coded by WMO number. Nicholas has kindly developed a method of reading the zip data into R. I’ve applied this to make a function read.meteo (see first post below) which will return an annualized anomaly series from the meteo.ru zip files. I’ve done similar functions for HadCRU3, GHCN v2 and will post up a collation of these functions some time.

Nicholas has also developed a method for downloading GISS station data directly from R. I’ll post this up as accessing GISS station data has been exceedingly frustrating since there is no large data archive and, without Nicholas’ skill, you have to do this manually through the web page.

Gridcell 62N, 77E: Tarko-Sale, Russia

Today I’m going to discuss another Russian gridcell 62.5N; 77.5E, which is one of the gridcells that was identified by IPCC as having a particularly strong trend . Warwick Hughes previously analyzed this cell because of this here, with this map highlighting the location of the Tarko-Sale gridcell in the top left corner of the map.

The following analysis is based on the GHCN station Tarko-Sale (23552), a town with a population of 18,500 founded in 1932, about 560 km to the south-east of Salekhard. Anorther GHCN, Aleksandrovskoe, is in the gridcell and is discussed by Warwick, but not discussed here. I may return to it on a future occasion.

We’re getting to gulag country here and the date of the establishment of Tarko-Sale seems gulag-esque. In browsing information on the area, I noticed some interesting local iore, including the use of max-min thermometers by criminals as a murder weapon. So we’d all better be careful not to rile the meteorologists. Continue reading

Malye Karmakuly, Russia (#2)

Since I’ve been able to closely replicate one HadCRU3 gridcell from GHCN v2 data, it’s interesting to compare other HadCRU3 gridcells to GHCN versions. I’ve looked through a number of gridcells and each one has its own issues. Today, I’ll do a comparison of Malye Karmakuly, Novaya Zemlya, which we’ve discussed before, and the corresponding HadCRU3 gridcell. I’ll review some of the relevant data archives that I’ve located so far. Continue reading

Pielke Jr on Spinning Science

Roger Pielke Jr has an interesting post an objectionable press release – recall the controversy over the climateprediction.net press release last year. Some time, I’ll discuss rules on press releases that apply to stock promoters – there are things that mining promoters are not allowed to say in press releases.

As someone with experience with press releases by speculative mineral exploration companies, I never cease to be amazed at how promotional climate scientists and their institutions have become.

Phil Jones and the Kazakh Copper Smelter (47N 67E)

Before I get to Phil Jones and the Kazakh copper smelter, I wish to report that, somewhat to my own amazement, I’ve been able to get a surprisingly close approximation of a few HadCRUT3 gridcells from third-party data. Here is a comparison of the annualized HadCRUT3 gridcell 47N;67E as compared to GHCN v2 for Karsakpay (alternate Karsakpai; Karsakpaj). Now this replicatio raises as many questions as it answers: why does the gridcell end in 1990? is there more up-to-date data? what accounts for the slight difference in end dates? is Karsakpay a “rural” site as stated in Jones et al 1990?

russia581.gif
Top – HadCRUT3 for 47.5N;67.5E; bottom GHCN v2 Karsakpay. Red and black are tow different GHCN v2 versions. Continue reading

Unthreaded #5

Continuation of Unthreaded #4

Phil Jones and the Great Leap Forward

The other key network in the seminal Jones et al 1990 on urbanization (relied upon in AR4) is their Chinese network. The idea that China between 1954 and 1983 – the age of Chairman Mao and the Great Leap Forward – could have achieved consistency in temperature measurement that eluded the U.S. observing system (with changing times of observation, instruments etc) is a conceit that seems absurd on its face. However Peterson 2003 in a recent literature review held the Jones Chinese network as one of only a few “homogeneous” networks. Jones et al 1990 described their QC procedures as follows:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we selected those with few, if any changes in instrumentation, location or observation times.

In this case, I have been able to track down third-party documentation on stations used in Jones’ China network and it is impossible that Jones et al could have carried out the claimed QC procedures. NDP039 states the following:

Few station records included in the PRC data sets can be considered truly homogeneous. Even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times, and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization. Fortunately, for 59 of the stations in the 65-station network, station histories (see Table 1) are available to assist in proper interpretation of trends or jumps in the data; however, station histories for the 205-station network are not available. In addition, examination of the data from the 65-station data set has uncovered evidence of several undocumented station moves (Sects. 6 and 10).

I have plotted locations of the 65-station network and, while the stations are in the same general area as the 205-station network, in a first look, few seem to match. Thus, it appears that many, if not most, of the stations in the Jones network are from stations for which there are no station histories and that lack of homogeneity is characteristic of the stations for which there is a station history. Here are details. Continue reading

Phil Jones and the Dutiful Comrades

Beneath the seemingly placid world of U.S. weather co-operatives, recent analysts have found a turbulent world of changing observation times, with regime change after regime change. Hansen and Karl have been forced – unwillingly, I’m sure – to adjust past temperatures downwards. In contrast to the seemingly almost Iraqian chaos of the U.S. weather observation network, Jones et al 1990 reported that islands of homogeneous measurement could be found in Russia and China, where dutiful comrades seemingly set aside minor worldly concerns, like revolutions and famines, and homogeneously attended to their max-min thermometers creating, in the process, what Peterson 2003 described as two of the few studies that used “homogeneous data”.

When David Lean made the movie Dr Zhivago – a blockbuster in my teenage years with Julie Christie then a famous beauty – he must have forgotten the scenes where Omar Sharif and Julie Christie, just before fleeing, instructed arriving soldiers on how to transcribe max-min thermometer readings, with time suspended as in a Roadrunner cartoon so that the soldiers could take on these duties before Julie and Omar fled. In the tranquil world of Jones et al 1990, such scenes must have been repeated time and time again throughout the gulags.

Jones et al 1990 did not do anything as mundane as identifying the sites in their Russian “rural” network (and have thus far resisted efforts to identify the sites), but Jones et al 1990 does have a chicken-scratch map. Warwick Hughes has enlarged the chicken-scratch map and begun the process of trying to identify the 38 sites with some partial success. His analysis is here – see, for example the map here. Some sites can be plausibly identified. Malye Karmakuly on Novaya Zemlya is one such site, about which I’ll make some comments today. Continue reading

Hansen Then and Now

We’ve observed the changes in GISS over the past 7 years. Jean S draws our attention to the changes in GISS temperature history since Hansen et al 1981.

I’ve tried to re-plotted the current Hansen data – right frame – in the same format as Hansen et al 1981 Figure 3. This is not as easy as it seems because Hansen et al 1981 does not include information on centering; no digital version seems to be available; and the modern zonal versions commence in 1900 rather than 1880.

I’ve updated the graphic to also illustrate an interesting 1998 version of Hansen’s data which has proved helpful in trying to figure things out. The left panel below is a plot of the 1998 version (black) centered on 1901-1970. After thinking about this for a while, it became clear that the reference period had to cover most of the century or else the position of the NH series in Hansen et al 1981 could not be replicated. I think that the black version of the NH series is pretty well matched to Hansen et al 1998. Notice that Hansen et al 1981 picked 1880 as a starting point and that this neatly truncates from view a temperature decline from 1866 to 1880 (which was in the original data version). Just a coincidence, I’m sure.


Left: Figure 3 from Hansen et al 1981; right – Latest GISS data plotted in same format over same period. Most recent version is truncated at 1900, while earlier version went to 1880. The 2007 and 1998 data has been re-centered on 1901-1970. I’ve not been able to locate information so far on the reference period for Hansen et al 1981 and this may need re-drafting.

This shows that there doesn’t seem to have been much adjusting of the north (N of 24N) series up to 1998, but it has been adjusted down between 1998 and 2007. However, there do seem to have been adjustments to the other two series between 1981 and 1998, as well as between 1998 and 2007. One of the very important reporting changes between 1998 and 2007 is the truncation of the period 1880-1900. Notice the particular impact on the tropics, where 1998 results show late 19th century values similar to closing 1980 values, resulting in no net change between 1880 and 1980 in the tropics. What do you suppose the reason was for eliminating the reporting of zonal measurements for 1880-1900 in the most recent results?

Jean S observed:

For instance, the difference between the temperature height in 1940 and low in 1970 in northern latitudes is about 0.5C in 1981 version whereas now it seems to be about 0.3C. In low latitudes (1981 version), there are three peaks (around 1930,1940,1960) that are higher than 1980, but in the current version two of those peaks have disappeared and even the existing one (1940) is below 1980. In southern latitudes, there is a lot of variation between 1900-1930 in 1981 version whereas the currrent version is almost flat. Also the mean of 1910’s is about the same as the mean of 1960’s in 1981 version, but in the current version there is over 0.2C difference. And so on…

UC observed:

We’ll lose the concept of time soon. It will undoubtedly get warmer in the future, but also past temperatures will get colder in the future. 🙂

Hansen et al 1981 stated of the left panel:

A remarkable conclusion from Fig 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based on NH experience to 1970. Another conclusion is that global surface air temperature rose ~0.4 deg C in the past century, roughly consistent with calculated CO2 warming. The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase, indicating that other factors must affect global mean temperatures.

The adjusted GISS temperature is a little more consistent with the “course of the CO2 increase” and less consistent with solar changes, with the largest differences occurring in southern latitudes, about which the least is known. I wonder what back-up is available for the southern series. However, from a statistical point of view, because these adjustments have such an impact on the eventual fit, it’s getting to the point where a statistical analyst may have to ask whether GISS adjustments to pre-1980 temperature should be counted as a degree of freedom in their modeling.

"Heed the Goracle"

Gore swept into Toronto yesterday using an environmentally controversial airline on Toronto Island – a service that is opposed by friends of Toronto’s waterfront (including myself.) The departing headlines read: Heed the Goracle. Continue reading