Temperatures in the Flat Middle of the USA

Last week I noted the curious drop in temperature along the Eastern Seaboard in the period from around 1950 to 1965. The question then arises as to whether there are other pieces of information in the data that I have accumulated, and so, out of curiosity, today I will look at the strip of states in the middle of the country and compare their average temperature with that of the East Coast. (Checking to see if my memory that there wasn't quite the same drop is, in fact, true).

I am trying to stay away from mountains in this strip, so I will pick Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. And, while there are some hills in the selection, just for simple characterization I am going to call these the “Flat Mid States.”

Interestingly all these months since I first looked at Arkansas, there is still a problem downloading the data for Rohwer from the USHCN, so I used the GISS values instead (recognizing that they are a little manipulated, but since I am averaging over 15 stations, reckoning that the “adjustment” won’t make that much difference.)

Looking at the average plot just averaging the state average values, calculated in earlier posts, one gets, for the homogenized data:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average homogenized temperatures

When one uses the TOBS data, rather than the homogenized values, then the curve changes to

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures

If I weigh the results by the stations in the state (there are a total of 405 stations in this series), then the result, using TOBS data becomes:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures, weighted by number of stations

The effective result of the weighting in the above plot is just to average all the station data. When, however, the area of the states is considered, bearing in mind that apart from Texas they are all much the same size, then the result becomes:

Averaged temperature in the Mid States using state average TOBS temperatures, weighted by state area.

It should be noted that the trend over the range of data is sensibly zero, i.e. there has been no temperature increase on average for these states, over the past 110 years.

The drop in temperature, so clear in the data for the Atlantic States is not as prolonged here, falling from 57.9 deg F in 1954 to 55.1 deg in 1960. Comparing the two plots:

Average temperature in the Flat Mid states (upper green) , relative to those of the Atlantic Shore states (lower red), averaging states weighted by area.

Note that there is a definite rise in temperature along the sea siding states. Also the larger size of Texas tends to give a larger weight to the south here, and thus the overall higher average.

Looking at the individual trends for each state in this set, I have again divided it into two sets to make it easier to distinguish the individual lines.

Average temperatures for the Northern set of states in the Flat Mid region

Note that Wisconsin and Michigan virtually overlap.

Average temperatures for the Southern set of states in the Flat Mid region
Here it is Arkansas and Oklahoma that are almost superimposed.

I will go on to look at other regions and compare them to see how temperature averages differ around the country, but will leave you with the usual comparison.

Difference between the average value for the USHCN homogenized values after the original TOBS values have been subtracted.

Michigan combined temperatures

Michigan has 24 USHCN stations, ranging from Adrian to Stambaugh and it also has 6 GISS stations on the list.


The GISS stations include Detroit, which has four stations, of which that at Detroit/City Airport has the right co-ordinates, though it also has only data from 1948. Then there is Grand Rapids, which has three stations, of which the third has the right co-ordinates, and has data going back to about 1885.

Third on the list is Muskegon which has only one site, but also only data from 1948. The fourth site is in Flint which starts in 1949. Fifth is at Sault Ste Marie which has three stations, but the one logically to choose is the USA designation. That has data from 1880. And finally there is Marquette which also has a USA designation and data from 1880.

Looking at populations, the station at Champion is in the State Park, but a look through Google Earth shows that it is near some buildings.

Champion Van Riper state park station in Michigan

So I gave it a population of 20. Other than that the data acquisition was straightforward. Looking at the results:


The influence of the change in the number of stations used is clear with the step in the 1940’s. And going from the homogenized to the TOBS temperature data:


The temperature rise has been around 1 degree every century, the USHCN homogenized data would suggest that it is actually twice that.

Michigan is in two pieces, and is surrounded by considerable volumes of water, which may have an influence on both climate and how it changes. It runs from roughly 82.5 deg W to 90.5 deg W, and from 41.67 deg N to 48.25 deg N. The geographic center is 85 deg W, 45 deg N. The latitude mean for the USHCN stations is 43.9 deg N, and that of the GISS stations is 44.1 deg N, both therefore a bit South of the mean. The mean elevation of the state is 274 m, ranging from 174 m to 603 m. The mean USHCN elevation is 264 m, and that of the GISS stations is 195.5 m.

Looking at how this affects the temperatures:


There is the clear correlation with latitude, and no correlation with longitude.


Even though there are a number of places with similar elevations, there is a clear correlation with elevation.


And when one uses the average of the past five years temperatures against population, there is a clear correlation here too.


And finally, to explain the difference between the temperature record and the USHCN homogenized values for temperatures in the state:


Interesting how many of these particular plots have that little kick at the end.

The Solar Car Race

With all the focus on the oil spill over the last few weeks, and my usual Sunday posts relating to coal at the moment, I am taking time for a short break with a change in topic. Today the solar car race starts its way across the country. With cars in the race that can now exceed speeds of 105 mph the race each day may be a little shorter than it used to, when cars limped along at 15 mph and similar slower speeds.

The 2010 American Solar Challenge (ASC2010) is a competition to design, build, and drive solar-powered cars in a cross-country time/distance rally event. Teams compete in a 1100 mile drive from Broken Arrow, OK to Naperville, IL. The route has been chosen to combine pieces of old routes used in previous events, giving a bit of an historical tribute for the 20 years of organized events in North America.

Solar car Route
UPDATE: I have put the times for the first 10 cars to arrive in Neosho according to the U of Michigan. The cars had to wait an hour there, and then drove on with Michigan now parked for the evening near Topeka. Kaohsiung is not far behind them, with the next block of cars parked for the evening near Butler, MO.

The race today has the cars starting in a sequence that was defined by their performance in the Solar Grand Prix described below. There were 17 cars entered and 14 qualified for the race. (Oregon did not qualify)



The race today starts at noon in Broken Arrow, OK and will end in the grounds of Crowder College in Neosho, MO. The full schedule is:

Start in Broken Arrow, OK; must reach Neosho, MO checkpoint Mon, June 21: Finish in Topeka, KS Tue, June 22, 9 AM: Start in Topeka, KS; must reach Jefferson City, MO checkpoint Wed, June 23: Finish in Rolla, MO Thu, June 24, 9 AM: Start in Rolla, MO; must reach Alton, IL checkpoint Fri, June 25: Finish in Normal, IL Sat, June 26, 10 AM: Start in Normal, IL; finish in Naperville, IL

The rules for the race are that the cars have solar panels covering the car, and batteries inside the car, so that they can continue driving through clouds and rain. This can require considerable strategy since a period without much sun can leave the car stranded by the roadside until it is either towed into the finish line, or the sun comes out and the batteries recharge. Adjusting speed to keep going through those outages becomes critical to overall success, if the race is run under bad weather. (Which it was one year, Rolla won that one).

MO S&T solar car

If the car finishes the route for the day early it can recharge its batteries while waiting for other cars to catch up, within specified hours. The race has great camaraderie and teams have been known to lend their competitors parts to keep them in the race.

Since I will likely be trying to find out what is happening most of this afternoon, there will not be a coal post today – I’ll restart them after the race is over (it ends Saturday). There is some family interest in this given that the Engineer is supporting Northwestern and I reckon that the Missouri team will, again, show their quality in the end.

Prior to the race there was a Grand Prix, down in Cresson Texas.

FSGP is a track race, which also serves as a qualifier for the road race. The top teams in FSGP, which complete at least 100 laps in a single day, or any two consecutive day total of 150 laps, will automatically qualify for ASC. Only Official Laps will count towards qualifying mileage. The track is 1.7 miles.

In addition, each solar car driver must complete a minimum of 25 laps of driving during FSGP to qualify to drive in ASC.

The order of the race was set as a result of the Grand PRix, with the fastest lap times being set by Stanford and Minnesota, who tied with a time of 2.05 minutes for the 1.7 mile course.

Because of the tightness of some of the designs, the race has its share of dramatic moments. Kentucky had a front wheel spindle shear, Oregon had electrical problems that couldn't be fixed, but those on the Western Michigan car were. (As was Missouri's parking brake problem).

The race started at noon, with cars leaving at minute intervals toward Neosho. Their arrival into the check-point at Crowder College is reported to be:

1. Michigan at 2:37
2. Bochum (Germany) 2:49
3. Minnesota 2:55
4 Kaohsiung (Taiwan) 2:56
5. Calgary 3:??
6. SUNY 3:25
7. Missouri S&T 3:38
8. Stanford 3:51
9. Kentucky 4:37
10. Northwestern 4:37

I believe that they had to stop racing at 5 pm. But could recharge the batteries until 8 pm.

P51. Pick Points

Half-a-dozen or so stories of interest:

The energy lobby is not thrilled about the latest plans to increase taxes on the industry and is now forming a group to speak up for the industry. As an alternative North Dakota is thinking about putting 25% of the oil generated income into a trust fund. While Ecuador is going after some unpaid taxes that it claims Perenco, a French oil company, owes due to the “extraordinary profits” the company has made. Michigan’s Governor is asking for a gas tax to fix the crumbling roads in the state. The intent is to shift the rate from a per gallon, to a percentage of the price. Because state and federal revenues from existing taxes are no longer enough the Congress is also looking at ways to restructure the system to raise more revenue, one of the thoughts being considered is a mileage charge. Massachusetts has a similar problem, and are considering a 25% increase in the state gas tax (which would bring in about $650 million), as is Oregon.


Ugo Bardi has his post on “Fire and Ice” up on the main TOD board, (it was on TOD Europe before) and just for the historical record, it was I (not some guy from the USGS) who disagreed with Dave Rutledge down at ASPO 2007 – which did not stop the pair of us, with a group of others, adjourning to the bar to discuss the topic thereafter.

Speaking of conferences the MIT student Energy Club just held their conference at which the Swedish company Vattenfall said that they would be carbon neutral by 2050. Sweden has previously said that it will wean itself from oil within the next fifteen years . Sweden gets most of its electricity from nuclear and from hydro, so that the major use of fossil fuels is in transportation. I should be in Sweden this weekend (there will be a slight hiatus since it is a long flight and I am going to work) so I will post on what I hear.

At the start of an Energy Conference in Qatar the Exxon CEO has used their success with Qatar (they will have doubled the LNG production to 62 million tonnes this year, leading to the establishment of fourth and fifth LNG trains). Half the vessels for the 4th train are now delivered, and 5 of the 6 for the 5th train. The LNG is coming into a market that is currently seeing (outside of South Asia) a surplus of natural gas (hence all the rig closures in the US) and the LNG entry is likely to soften the market further. However if the predictions of a drop in US well production hold up, then the LNG will be coming on market just as it would otherwise tighten. China, which currently uses 13 million tonnes of LNG , with imports from Russia and Kazakhstan, is also aiming for a target of 60 million tonnes a year by 2020, with some of that to come from Qatar. A local shortage of natural gas is also causing Saudi Arabia to fast-track the development of two off-shore gas fields.

Development of the Arabiyah and Hisbah gas fields, which are not associated with oil production, would supply around 1.8 billion cubic feet per day, MEES reported. The projects were included in Aramco's expansion plan through 2014, it said.

"Bringing these fields on line would make sense," one industry source in the kingdom told Reuters yesterday. "They really need the gas."

Success offshore has not been matched with equivalent searches for natural gas on land, and particularly in the Empty Quarter.

Utility operators in the United States continue to be concerned over the future of coal, and are scrapping even more plans for expansion, part of the problem lies in the uncertainty over future regulation. Just this past week a utility in Montana has given up on the fight with local environmentalists and will now be installing a gas-fired plant, even though the costs may be higher. There are still, however, some 28 coal-fired plants under construction. To prevent more ash dam failures, EPA is seeking the necessary information on the sites where such impoundments exist. There may be as many as 300. Idaho Power, having seen the writing on the wall, has also changed its mind, and instead of a coal-fired plant will be installing a 300 MW plant in Payette county. The site is close to an existing gas pipeline, and an existing 230-kV transmission line. Now all they need to worry about is the long-term availability of the fuel.

A small note, it appears that having not had them built for very long, China has already filled the current round of tanks for their Strategic Petroleum Reserve and is thinking of adding more storage using tankers. (Which suggests they don’t think prices will stay down much longer, either). They currently have 34 days of supply in storage., but this may not count the 100 million barrels in the reserve. China is actively chasing after oil, and trying to ensure supplies when the price is right. And there are still those who think that the floor of the market has not yet arrived and that prices can sink some more.

And Pakistan has decided to go ahead with a gas pipeline from Iran, without having Indian participation.

More stories can be found at The Energy Bulletin and Drumbeat at The Oil Drum.