Temperature drop with elevation

This morning I visited Watts Up with That and read a post on the accuracy of the new set of temperature stations around the country. It points out that the new set of stations show, on average, a lower temperature than the record claimed by Jim Hansen.

In his rebuttal to this Nick Stokes points out that the average elevation of the two sets of stations is different and that when that is taken into account, allowing a temperature drop of 6 degC/km then the difference between the two sets of data is explained.

However the original network had an average elevation of 1,681 ft (512 m) and the new network has an average of 2,223 ft (667.6 m) giving a difference of 155.6 m or an anticipated temperature difference of 0.1556 x 6 = 0.93 deg C.

Well, in the state data that I calculated some time ago I plotted the temperature against elevation and so I quickly (too quickly as I found out) went through the various posts for the different states shown undeer the Follower pictures on the right hand side of the page, and listed them with the average slopes of the graphs I had plotted. Ran an average, and posted the result on WUMT.

Turns out I made a slight error since I plotted the temperature in deg F and the elevation in meters, so that the correlation I got was in bastard units. And I mis-entered one of the data points into the table. It translates, when done correctly into an average decrease of 0.016 deg F per meter, or 0.0089 deg C per m, 8.9 deg C per km, 50% higher than that quoted by Nick.

For those interested I have tabulated the average slope against average state elevation and then plotted it, just for grins.

Figure 1. Temperature trend with average elevation for each of the Contiguous United States

What is interesting (apart from the two negative values for North and South Dakota) is how the trend shifts as one gets closer to sea level. I did not plot this relative to their actual distance from the sea, but it reinforces my conclusion that the sea temperatures have more of an influence than we are giving them credit for.


There is no more

Utah combined temperatures - revisited

When I first began this review of state temperatures I started in Missouri and moved west in subsequent posts. As a result Utah was the fourth state that I reviewed, and then, when the USHCN site also provided the Time of Observation corrected data, I looked at that data for Utah also. On April 4th Anthony Watts, at WUWT, wrote a post on the temperatures in Utah, based on the publication of a report by Weather Source, on temperatures in that state. As I have done, so they looked at populations in the state, but dividing population groups into three sizes, showed that temperature rise rates were different for the three groups.

Temperature trends for different station types in Utah (Weather Source)

The categorization of the station location as to whether it was urban, surrounded by agricultural activity (which will have some impact on temperatures) and those in natural wilderness or where the environs will have a low impact on the temperatures measured by the station. The study grouped the data in a different way than I do, and also only looked at the trends since 1948, while I look back over the data since 1895.

But primarily what I wanted to do today was to restructure the Utah posts so that they were in the same format as those of the later sites, where I included a couple of different plots and analysis not in the original posts. So this is a revision, and in the listing on the right side of the page it will replace the original two posts for Utah (though they will still be available through the references at the beginning of this article).

Utah has 40 stations that are not evenly distributed around the state, but clearly focus along a couple of highways.

USHCN stations in Utah

There is only one GISS station in Utah, and it is in Salt Lake City. (It has a full set of data for the period). So how does the GISS data compare with the USHCN homogenized data?


The average difference is that the GISS site is 4 degrees higher than the average USHCN site after the data for those sites has been homogenized.

Looking at the TOBS temperatures for the state over the 115 years:


This gives a temperature rise of 1.25 degrees per century, in contrast with the homogenized value of 2.55 degrees. (In comparison the Weather Source rates – calculated however only since 1948, give values of 4.2 degrees per century for urban locations, 2.7 degrees for agricultural sites, and 2 degrees per century for natural wilderness).

Looking at the Utah geography the state is 350 miles long and 270 miles wide. It runs from 109 deg W to 114 degW and from 37 to 42 deg N. The highest point is at 4,123 m and the lowest at 609 m. The average elevation is at 1,859 m. The average USHCN station is at an elevation of 1,604 m, and the GISS station is at 1,288 m. Given that there is a strong correlation with elevation (see below) it is not surprising that the GISS station reads high. The center of the state is at 111 deg 41.1” W, 39 deg 23.2”N. The average of the USHCN stations is at 111.6 deg W, 39.4 deg N.

In regard to the variation with latitude:


Note that the regression coefficient goes from 0.16 with homogenized data to 0.23 with the original TOBS data.

And with Longitude:


This tends to confirm that the true correlation is not with longitude but rather with elevation.


Turning to the relationship with population, it is not yet clear whether averaging the last 12 or 24 (or some value in between) for the number of years to correlate the temperature with is best. A quick check suggests that, of the three, a 12 year correlation is best:


And finally there is the difference between the homogenized and the TOBS data changes over the years. It is interesting to see that sudden upturn at the end.

Carbon Credits - or Farming in North Dakota

Courtesy of Anthony Watts I am posting this story from his Web Page (Watts Up With That) today, since it relates to the ongoing Carbon Credit discussion.

Simply put the National Farmers Union Carbon Credit Program sells the “credit” that farmers in, say North Dakota, create when they carry out various different farming practices that don’t generate as much carbon dioxide. For example if you practice “no-till” farming of corn and soybeans, then you don’t, obviously, use a tractor to till and thus don’t generate as much carbon dioxide. (By leaving the untilled soil and remaining material in the soil undisturbed so that it does not emit carbon dioxide, and methane and additional carbon dioxide are not emitted - coincidentally it is usually good farming practice since it reduces soil erosion and helps hold nutrients in the soil). Thus, for example, as Bloomberg points out, a farmer who does not till 800 acres can save 470 tons of carbon (dioxide). This then becomes a credit that can be sold, and is apparently currently worth about $3,000 a year.

Thus a site that generates a large quantity of carbon can buy these “offsets” from the farmers saving carbon, and set that against their own production. The North Dakota Farmers Union of some 3,900 members, apparently shared some $9 million last year, up from $2.6 million in 2007. However, if the farmers are doing this already, and for other reasons, that does not stop them selling the credit and taking the money. Except that Anthony gives the story of one farmer that has changed his mind. It is reproduced with his permission.




I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.

Here is why.

Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions.

I asked “what is the source of this money”?

The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.

I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.

So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.

I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? he said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.

I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.

Let’s be clear.

Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?

It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.

Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.

No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely, however, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney:

“Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”