One of the main aims of this blog has been to investigate the extent to which the various datasets in the global temperature record have been adjusted and to ascertain both the impact of these adjustments and their validity. Most of the blog posts for individual countries or territories have sought to quantify the magnitude of these adjustments by calculating two versions of the mean temperature anomaly (MTA) for each region; one based on its raw unadjusted data and a second using Berkeley Earth adjusted data. Then the two are compared and the difference calculated. This difference is often considerable and often shows that the adjustments have increased the amount of reported warming. But I have also investigated the second issue, that of validity. One way to do this is to compare the MTA for neighbouring regions or different data samples from the same region.
The rationale is as follows. If there are errors in the data that are sufficient to affect the MTA, then comparing MTAs from different samples from the same region, or samples from adjacent regions that would be expected to be almost identical, could highlight the errors. Of course any difference between MTAs from different regions does not prove that the data is wrong; it may be that the regions aren't as similar as one supposed. But if the data is virtually identical then that does suggest both that the temperature trends for the two samples or regions are behaving the same, and that any data errors in the temperature datasets (which are likely to be numerous) are not significant and so are not in need of correction or adjustment.
In Post 57 I used this approach to compare the temperature trends of neighbouring countries in central Europe (Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Hungary). The results showed that if the MTA for a country was determined using data from more than about fifteen different station records then there was little difference between MTAs for different countries, and thus very little error in the MTA of each country. This is because of a property of statistics called regression towards the mean. This basically states that if any dataset contains errors in its measurements (which most data does), and those errors are random in their size and distribution (which they often are), then the errors will tend to cancel each other when you average the data. Moreover, the more data you average, the greater the cancellation of errors and so the more accurate will be the result. If errors don't cancel, then that is because the errors are systematic not random, so the process also helps to identify these as well.
In Post 67 I repeated this process for temperature data from the USA. In this case instead of comparing data from adjacent regions I compared different samples of one hundred stations from the same region: the entire contiguous United States. The result was the same as in Post 57 with each sample exhibiting an identical temperature trend over time with identical fluctuations in the 5-year moving average of the trend.
In this post I will repeat the country comparison of Post 57 but using the 5-year moving average of the temperature trend data from the four neighbouring Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. These trends were determined in Post 135, Post 136, Post 137 and Post 48 respectively. The results are shown in Fig. 139.1 below.
Fig. 138.1: A comparison of the 5-year average temperature trends since 1700 for Norway, Finland and Denmark compared to that of Sweden. The trends for Finland and Norway are offset by ±3°C for clarity.
In Fig. 139.1 I have compared the trends of Norway, Finland and Denmark with that of Sweden. The reasons for choosing Sweden as the comparator were both geographic and practical. It sits between the other three countries and so is a near neighbour for each (Finland and Denmark are not near neighbours so would not be good comparators). But it also has the most stations of the four countries and so should have the most reliable trend.
The data in Fig. 139.1 clearly shows that the trends for all four countries are very similar after 1900 but diverge as one looks further back in time towards 1800. The reason for this is the reduction in station numbers seen in each country as one moves back in time from 1950 (see Fig. 138.2 below). Given that it seems that somewhere between ten and thirty stations are needed in the MTA average in order for the errors to be minimized, we can see from Fig. 138.2 that this condition is satisfied for all four countries after 1890. That is why the MTAs diverge before 1890 but are very similar after that date.
Fig. 138.2: The number of station records included each month in the averaging for the mean temperature trends in Fig. 138.1.
If we just consider the data after 1850 we see that the agreement between trends for the different countries is remarkably good after 1890 (see Fig. 138.3 below). The agreement between Norway and Sweden, and Finland and Sweden are both particularly good to the point of their three trends being almost identical. There is also excellent agreement between Denmark's trend and that of Sweden after 1980 but less so before. This is probably the result of Denmark not only having much fewer stations than the other three countries, but also having fewer than ten stations before 1975.
Fig. 138.3: A comparison of the 5-year average temperature trends since 1850 for Norway, Finland and Denmark compared to that of Sweden. The trends for Finland and Norway are offset by ±3°C for clarity.
Summary
The data in Fig. 138.3 once again demonstrates the futility of temperature adjustments. The fact that the mean temperature anomalies (MTAs) of Norway, Sweden and Finland agree so well for over 120 years from 1890 onwards without data adjustments indicates that the averaging process alone can eliminate most errors.
The Denmark data also adds weight to the conjecture that between ten and thirty stations are needed in the average in order to eliminate most of the data errors. As the error size decreases with the square root of the sample size, an average of 25 datasets should decrease the error size by 80% (reducing each error to a fifth of its nominal value).
Comparing the data of these four countries in this way also gives us more confidence in the determining the true nature of the regional temperature trend. All the data after 1900 pretty much agree so we can conclude that temperatures from 1900 to 1980 rose marginally by less than 0.3°C and then jumped by about 1°C in the 1980s. But this jump is still only comparable to the size of the fluctuations in the 5-year average.
From 1850 to 1900 both Denmark and Norway diverge from Sweden slightly but in different directions. But this is based on a comparison of only one or two stations in each case and so is not unexpected.
No comments:
Post a Comment