112: Venezuela - temperature trends WARMING

The climate of Venezuela is interesting because the country sits between Colombia to the west and the Lesser Antilles to the north. In this blog I have already examined the climate for both these regions and the results are not entirely consistent. The mean temperature of Colombia has remained fairly stable since 1940, increasing only slightly by about 0.1°C (see Fig. 95.2 in Post 95). The caveat to this is that there is no temperature data for the country before 1920 and only two stations of note with data before 1940. The Lesser Antilles, on the other hand, have more data but spread over a larger area, and this data shows much more warming, up to 2°C since 1890 (see Fig. 111.3 in Post 111). It turns out that the climate of Venezuela more closely resembles that of the Lesser Antilles than it does its neighbour Colombia as can be seen in Fig. 112.1 below.

Fig. 112.1: The mean temperature change for Venezuela relative to the 1976-2005 monthly averages. The best fit is applied to the monthly mean data from 1941 to 1980 and has a slight positive gradient of +0.28 ± 0.31 °C per century.

The main features of the data in Fig. 112.1 are very similar to those seen in Fig. 111.3 of Post 111. Between 1940 and 1980 the climate is stable, with the mean temperature rising by at most 0.1°C, but after 1980 there is a rapid temperature increase of over 0.5°C. This is consistent with other trends seen in the region such as for Puerto Rico (see Fig. 110.1 in Post 110) and the Dominican Republic (see Fig. 109.3 in Post 109). Yet the mean temperature anomaly (MTA) dataset in Fig. 112.1 also displays a large jump in temperatures of over 1.5°C before 1940. This is not seen in the Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic data, nor is it seen in the data for Colombia (see Fig. 95.2 in Post 95), but it is seen in the data for the Lesser Antilles (see Fig. 111.3 in Post 111). In both cases the MTA before 1940 is based on data from only about five stations or less (see Fig. 112.2 below and Fig. 111.4 of Post 111), yet the fact that they corroborate each other suggests that the data may be more reliable than than I first thought and may be indicative of real climate change. The problem is that, if this is true, it poses a lot of difficult questions about the real nature of climate change.

Fig. 112.2: The number of station records included each month in the mean temperature anomaly (MTA) trend for Venezuela in Fig. 112.1.

If we assume that the temperature rises of 1.5°C from 1900 to 1940 that are seen in Venezuela (see Fig. 112.1 above) and the Lesser Antilles are real, then we need to ask the question, why?

Historical measurements of carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels suggest that atmospheric CO₂ levels increased from about 290 ppm in 1880 to about 310 ppm in 1940. But even with the best will in the world it is difficult to believe that a 7% rise in CO₂ would result in a 1.5°C temperature rise. In Fig. 87.3 of Post 87 I showed that the most it could lead to was a rise of 0.08°C, and even then three quarters of that rise is likely to be negated by the pre-existing presence of water vapour in the atmosphere, the absorption spectrum of which overlaps both edges of the 15 µm CO₂ absorption band. So the temperature rise seen before 1940 in Venezuela is actually nearly one hundred times greater than would be expected from CO₂ alone. So if CO₂ cannot explain the temperature rise, what does that say about our faith in climate stability? For if the climate can fluctuate by 1.5°C from time to time off its own bat, why should we care about CO₂?

Then there is the more practical issue: why did no-one even notice this temperature rise? We are constantly being told by climate scientists that a 1.5°C rise in global temperatures would be disastrous for the planet. Yet just such an increase appears to have occurred in Venezuela and the Caribbean over a century ago and nothing untoward happened. 

Fig. 112.3: The (approximate) locations of the 21 medium weather station records in Venezuela. Those stations with a high warming trend between 1911 and 2010 are marked in red while those with a cooling or stable trend are marked in blue. Those denoted with squares are stations with over 800 months of data, while diamonds denote stations with more than 480 months of data.

The mean temperature anomalies (MTA) in Fig. 112.1 were calculated by averaging the temperature anomalies from the 38 longest temperature records for the state. The anomalies for each station were determined using the usual method as outlined in Post 47. All the records used in calculating the MTA had over 240 months of temperature data before the end of 2013 and 21 were medium stations with over 480 months of data. Of these three had over 1000 months of data and a further ten had over 800 months of data. For a full list of stations see here. 

The locations of the medium stations are illustrated in Fig. 112.3 above. This map appears to show that the geographical spread of these stations is fairly uniform but confined to the northern half of the country. The variation in station density is probably not sufficient to significantly distort the average in Fig. 112.1 from its true value though. In which case the simple average of the anomalies from all stations used to construct the MTA in Fig. 112.1 should still yield a fairly accurate temperature trend for the country as a whole. This can be verified by calculating the equivalent MTA, but using Berkeley Earth (BE) adjusted data, and comparing the results with the official BE version. If they are the same then the averaging process should be sufficiently accurate.

Fig. 112.4: Temperature trends for Venezuela based on Berkeley Earth adjusted data. The best fit linear trend line (in red) is for the period 1941-2010 and has a gradient of +1.06 ± 0.07°C/century.

The corresponding MTA result based on data that has been adjusted by Berkeley Earth (BE) is shown in Fig. 112.4 above and, unlike the raw data in Fig. 112.1, it exhibits a strong warming trend that is more uniform in its gradient. The overall temperature rise from 1900 to 2010 is about 1.5°C and so is significantly less than the 2.2°C that is seen with the raw data in Fig. 112.1.

If we then compare the curves in Fig. 112.4 with the published Berkeley Earth (BE) version in Fig. 112.5 below we see that there is remarkably good agreement between the two sets of data at least as far back as 1920. This indicates that the simple averaging of anomalies used to generate the BE MTA in Fig. 112.4 is as effective and accurate as the more complex gridding method used by Berkeley Earth in Fig. 112.5. In which case simple averaging should be just as effective and accurate in generating the MTA using raw unadjusted data in Fig. 112.1.

Fig. 112.5: The temperature trend for Venezuela since 1820 according to Berkeley Earth.

The differences between the MTA in Fig. 112.1 and the BE versions using adjusted data in Fig. 112.4 and Fig. 112.5 are therefore mainly due to the data processing procedures used by Berkeley Earth. These include homogenization, gridding, Kriging and most significantly breakpoint adjustments. These lead to changes to the original temperature data, the magnitude of these adjustments being the difference in the MTA values seen in Fig. 112.1 and Fig. 112.4. 

The magnitudes of these adjustments are shown graphically in Fig. 112.6 below. The blue curve is the difference in MTA values between adjusted (Fig. 112.4) and unadjusted data (Fig. 112.1), while the orange curve is the contribution to those adjustments arising solely from breakpoint adjustments. The vertical offset between the two curves is due to the difference in MRT intervals used by Berkeley Earth (1961-1990) and for Fig. 112.1 in this blog (1976-2005). What is clear is that after 1960 any adjustments made by Berkeley Earth to the data have little effect on the overall trend. However, before 1940 these adjustments appear to reduce the magnitude of the temperature rise by about 0.5°C. Overall the adjustments tend to make the MTA curve more linear.

Fig. 107.6: The contribution of Berkeley Earth (BE) adjustments to the anomaly data in Fig. 112.4 after smoothing with a 12-month moving average. The blue curve represents the total BE adjustments including those from homogenization. The linear best fit (red line) to these adjustments for the period 1891-2010 has a positive gradient of +0.19 ± 0.10 °C per century. The orange curve shows the contribution just from breakpoint adjustments.

Summary

According to the raw unadjusted temperature data, over the past century the climate of Venezuela has warmed by over 2°C (see Fig. 112.1).

The climate change seen for Venezuela appears to be very similar to that of the Lesser Antilles (see Fig. 111.3 of Post 111) with 75% of the warming occurring before 1940 and very little warming between 1940 and 1980. This does not correlate with changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the same period. 

The origin of the 1.5°C warming before 1940 remains unexplained but its similarity to data from the Lesser Antilles suggests that the temperature change is real and not the result of measurement biases or errors.

The adjusted temperature data from Berkeley Earth appears to show that the climate of Venezuela has warmed more continuously (or linearly) and by about 1.4°C (see Fig. 112.4 and Fig. 112.5) since 1880.


Acronyms

BE = Berkeley Earth.

MRT = monthly reference temperature (see Post 47).

MTA = mean temperature anomaly.

List of all stations in Venezuela and their raw data files.