Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Ushcn

LONG TERM TEMPERATURE TRENDS IN DAILY STATION DATA: USHCN
JAMAL MUNSHI
ABSTRACT: Month by month trend analysis of more than 100 years of daily maximum (TMAX) and daily minimum (TMIN)
temperatures from 34 USHCN stations in 17 states across the USA is presented. The results show an overall warming trend in
the data that is driven primarily by warming in the nighttime measurement TMIN. The evidence of warming in the TMIN data is
seen more clearly in a gradual narrowing of the diurnal range. These results are inconsistent with the usual assumption that
1
warming trends in the USHCN instrumental record are driven by anthropogenic global warming .
1. INTRODUCTION (Menne, 2015)
Ever since the Industrial Revolution there has been a concern that the use of fossil fuels introduces
extraneous carbon into natures delicately balanced surface-atmosphere carbon cycle the effect of
which is unnatural, unknown, unprecedented, and possibly dangerous because it may upset the climate
system by way of global warming due to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (Callendar, 1938)
(Revelle, 1957) (Hansen, 1981) (Lacis, 2010) (IPCC, 2014) (Hansen, 1988) (Hansen, 2016). The fear of
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has generated a great interest in temperature trends such that
even minute changes in the temperature record are scrutinized, and controversial implications for their
effects on climate, extreme weather, and sea level rise are weighed against the cost of reducing
emissions as a way of moderating these changes (Trenberth, 2013) (Trenberth, 2014) (Karl, 2015) (Tung,
2013) (Easterling, 2009) (Karoly, 2006) (Parker, 2005) (Parker, 2007) (Plaut, 1995) (IPCC, 2014). Energy
and development policy around the world are impacted by these evaluations.
This work offers a critical revision of the usual methodology employed in the study of long term
temperature trends. Typically, diurnal and intra-month changes are eliminated by simple arithmetic
averaging into monthly means. The monthly means are then either averaged directly into annual means
or the average seasonal cycle in the data is removed and the deseasonalized monthly means are
subjected to trend analysis. The OLS trend in the aggregated annual means or the deseasonalized
monthly means across the full sample period serves as the measure of long term trend. A great deal of
information is lost in this procedure.
Problems with combining a limited number of diurnal observations, such as minimum and maximum
temperatures, into a single number to represent that day are recognized (Mitchell, 1958) (Baker, 1975)
(Hansen, 2001). In particular, the simple average of the daily minimum and maximum temperatures
does not yield useful information because the shape of the diurnal temperature curve, and therefore
the relative weights of the minimum and maximum in a weighted average are not known. Most of the
variance in temperature is contained in the diurnal cycle, the seasonal cycle, in multi-decadal trend
1
Date: May 2017
Key words & phrases: climate change, station temperature data, trend analysis, trend profile, AGW, anthropogenic global
warming, fossil fuel emissions, USHCN, temperature trend asymmetry, diurnal cycle, trend in diurnal cycle, cloud feedback
Author affiliation: Professor Emeritus, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, 94928, munshi@sonoma.edu
LONG TERM TEMPERATURE TRENDS IN DAILY STATION DATA: USHCN, Jamal Munshi, 2017 2
cycles within the full span of the data, and in random variability. A very small portion, usually in the
order of 5% or less, can be attributed to long term trends (Munshi J. , 2015).
For example, in Choteau, Montana (Figure 1), the mean diurnal range varies from 12oC to 18oC and the
range in the seasonal cycle is 26oC. By comparison, the conventional aggregated long term OLS analysis
of daily minimum temperatures shows full span linear OLS warming rate in TMIN 1893-2016 of 2.3
Degrees Celsius per Century (DCPC). Though a very high rate of warming, it is still rather insignificant in
comparison with short term changes. For instance, the annual seasonal cycle of 26oC is equivalent to
more than a decade of long term trend and the diurnal range of 18oC is equivalent to more than 7 years
of long term trend
Figure 1: Descriptive Statistics for Choteau, Montana 1893-2014
Information about diurnal and seasonal cycles is lost when the data are aggregated prior to trend
analysis (Baker, 1975) (Mitchell, 1958). To maintain data integrity we propose a procedure in which
trend analysis is carried out separately for daytime and nighttime temperatures (daily maximum and
daily minimum) and for each calendar month as a way of preserving the integrity of variable diurnal and
seasonal cycles throughout the sample period. The procedure yields 24 different trend values. Trends in
the diurnal range are derived from these results and all three trends are then understood and
interpreted in their context and combined as necessary and as appropriate to answer specific research
questions.
This paper is a continuation and extension of prior work on the study of long term temperature trends in
the instrumental record (Munshi J. , OLS Trend Analysis of CET Daily Mean Temperatures 1772-2016 ,
2017) (Munshi J. , 2015) (Munshi J. , Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Australia ,
2017) (Munshi J. , Anomalous Long Term Trends in USHCN Temperature Data, 2017) (Munshi-Edwards,
2016). It presents long term full span linear OLS trends in daily minimum temperatures, daily maximum
temperatures, and the diurnal range on a month by month basis for sample periods of 110 to 123 years
in 34 USHCN stations in 17 states distributed over a wide geographical expanse across the lower 48
states of the USA. The procedure yields 36 OLS trend values for each station, for each of the three
variables and for each of twelve calendar months. Greater insight into long term trend behavior is
gained in terms of all 36 trends.
2. DATA AND METHODS
More than a century of daily temperature data from a large number of United States Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) stations are available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the Carbon Dioxide Information Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(CDIAC) in an online database maintained by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (CDIAC, 2014)
(Menne, 2015). Daily minimum and daily maximum USHCN temperatures have been widely used in the
study of global warming (Hansen, 2001) (Williams, 2006)
Daily maximum (TMAX) and daily minimum (TMIN) temperatures from as early as 1891 were
downloaded from the ORNL data server for this study. The stations were randomly selected from an
alphabetical list with the condition of data availability from 1893 or earlier. After the data were
downloaded and examined it was found that data for some stations were sparse or missing in the early
years. Also, partial years were discarded and only complete calendar years were used. The earliest year
of data availability thus spans a range from 1892 to 1905.
Thirty four stations from seventeen states over a wide geographical distribution were chosen for the
study. The selected stations, their location, and their data availability are listed in Figure 2. Daily
maximum (TMAX) and daily minimum (TMIN) temperatures for more than a century (110 to 123 years)
are studied for long term trends with full span linear OLS regression. Descriptive statistics for TMAX and
TMIN as well as for the implied mean range of the diurnal cycle at all thirty four stations are provided in
the Appendix. The states colored yellow in the map describe the geographical extent of the study.
Figure 2: List of selected USHCN stations and their geographical distribution

Data are missing for 1% to 3% of the days. Missing data were replaced with the most recent data
available typically separated by one to four days. The error introduced by this procedure is assumed to
be negligible. TMIN and TMAX and the twelve calendar months are studied separately as different
phenomena of nature and not combined. This procedure requires twenty four separate sets of
temperature trends for each weather station and maintains the integrity and variability of both the
diurnal cycle and the seasonal cycle. Temperature data are provided in degrees Fahrenheit and they
were converted to degrees Celsius.
The full span linear OLS trends are subjected to the hypothesis test H0: =0 against HA: 0 where is
the underlying and unobservable trend in nature that generated the sample being studied. The
hypothesis test is made to hold a maximum false positive error rate of =0.001 across twelve calendar
months. The relatively low value of is consistent with Revised standards for statistical evidence
published by the NAS (Johnson, 2013) to address an unacceptable rate of irreproducible results in
published research (Siegfried, 2010). To hold the 12-month error rate to =0.001, the comparison for
each of the twelve calendar months is made at a comparison error rate of =0.0000833 (Holm, 1979).
If H0 is rejected the observed OLS coefficient considered a temperature trend and marked either as
WARMING if the sign is positive and COOLING if the sign is negative. If H0 cannot be rejected, the
month in question is labeled as NO TREND DETECTED. In the case of the diurnal range, positive values
are interpreted to mean that the diurnal range is GROWING and negative trends are taken to mean that
the diurnal range is SHRINKING.
The importance of USHCN data as evidence of warming is widely recognized and these data are
generally held as positive empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming (Hansen, 2001) (Hansen,
2010) (LaDochy, 2007) (Kaushal, 2010) (Easterling, 2002) (Pederson, 2010) (Hamilton, 2009) (Hamilton,
2013) (Hayhoe, 2008) (NielsenGammon, 2011) (Lawrimore, 2011).
Certain issues with USHCN temperature data have been noted particularly with respect to asymmetry in
daily minimum and daily maximum temperature trends and irreconcilable differences among USHCN
stations that prevent the development of harmonious regional climatology from multiple stations in the
area (Karl, 1993) (Pielke, 2007) (Pielke R. , 2002) (Munshi J. , Anomalous Long Term Trends in USHCN
Temperature Data, 2017). These issues are addressed in this paper.
All data and computational details used in this study are available for download from an online data
archive (Munshi J. , USHCN Paper Archive, 2017)2.
2
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByzA6UNa41ZfcnVvTVJWTkxPQmM
3. DATA ANALYSIS
Figures 3-7 display full span linear OLS trends in daily maximum (TMAX) and daily minimum (TMIN)
temperatures along with the trend in the range of the diurnal cycle (DIURNAL) at all 34 USHCN stations
selected for this study. In these charts, the ordinate measures the linear OLS trend across the entire
sample period measured in degrees Celsius per year for each calendar month. The calendar months are
marked along the x-axis as January=1 to December=12.
The lines in the chart are color coded red for trends in the daily maximum temperature (TMAX), blue for
trends in the daily minimum temperature (TMIN), and purple for trends in the range of the diurnal cycle
(DIURNAL). A black horizontal line is drawn through the zero-trend line to demarcate positive trends
above it from negative trends below. Positive trends in TMAX and TMIN represent warming and
negative trends represent cooling. Positive trends in the range of the diurnal cycle indicate that the
diurnal cycle is growing while a negative trend indicates that the range of the diurnal cycle is shrinking.
A wide variety of trend patterns is seen in the ensemble of 408 station-months (12 calendar months
times 34 USHCN stations in 17 states selected for this study). They show all combinations of warming
and cooling TMAX and warming and cooling TMIN that yield growing or shrinking ranges in the diurnal
cycle as well as trend combinations in TMAX and TMIN that yield no appreciable changes in the range of
the diurnal cycle.
The charts (Figures 3-7) show large differences in long term trend behavior among the twelve calendar
months and also among the 34 USHCN stations. The annual average trends across the twelve calendar
months are shown in the left panel of Figure 8 for each of the 34 USHCN stations in the study. Warming
and cooling trends in temperature and growing and shrinking trends in the diurnal range are separated
by the black horizontal zero-trend line.
The trend values plotted in Figures 3-7 and the annual and ensemble averages shown in Figure 8 are
tabulated in Figures 10-18 along with results of hypothesis tests for trends. Hypothesis test results for
trends in temperature are described as WARMING, COOLING, or NO TREND and those for the range of the
diurnal cycle are described as GROWING, SHRINKING, or NO TREND. There are thirteen rows of hypothesis
test results for each USHCN station. The first twelve are for the calendar months in sequence starting
from January down to December. The thirteenth row contains hypothesis test results for the mean
annual trend computed as the simple arithmetic average of the twelve month by month trends.
Average trends for all 34 stations for each month and for the ensemble of all 34 stations and all 12
calendar months appear in Figures 12 & 15 for temperature and in Figure 18 for the range of the diurnal
cycle. They show that on average for all calendar months, the ensemble of 34 USHCN stations show a
net warming trend of 0.277 degrees Celsius per century (DCPC) in daily maximum temperature (TMAX)
and a higher net warming trend of 0.576 DCPC in daily minimum temperature (TMIN). This result implies
that the observed warming trend in the ensemble is 0.4265 and that it derives mostly (67%) from rising
nighttime minimum temperatures rather than from rising daytime maximum temperatures (33%).
Figure 3: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Alabama, Arkansas, California, & Colorado
Figure 4: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Florida, Iowa, Idaho, & Illinois
Figure 5: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, & Minnesota
Figure 6: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Montana, New York, Texas, & Utah
Figure 7: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Washington
Figure 8: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX, TMIN, and the diurnal range: Averages for all calendar months and all stations
A meta-analysis of trends for all 408 station-months is presented in Figure 9. It shows that warming in
TMAX is found in 28% of the 408 station-months and cooling in 17%. In TMIN warming is found in 41% of
the cases with cooling in only 10%. We also find in Figures 16-18 that in 151 of the 408 station-months
(37%) the diurnal range is shrinking with 95 station-months (23%) showing a growing diurnal range. The
net trend for the diurnal range in in the ensemble of 408 station-months shows shrinking at the rate 0.3
DCPC (Figure 18). The trend combinations for TMAX and TMIN in the left panel of Figure 9 show that
TMAX is warming when TMIN is not warming in 56 of 408 station-months while TMIN is warming when
TMAX is not warming in 121 of 408 station-months. These observations support the conclusion that the
overall warming trend in the ensemble of 408 station-months is derived mostly from warming in TMIN.
Figure 9: Meta-analysis of hypothesis tests in Figure 10 to Figure 12

Figure 10: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 11: Full span linear OLS trends in TMAX at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 12: Average full span linear OLS trends in TMAX for all stations with hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 13: Full span linear OLS trends in TMIN at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 14: Full span linear OLS trends in TMIN at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 15: Average full span linear OLS trends in TMIN for all stations with hypothesis tests for trend
Figure 16: Full span linear OLS trends in the DIURNAL range at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests
Figure 17: Full span linear OLS trends in the DIURNAL range at each station for each calendar month and hypothesis tests
Figure 18: Average full span linear OLS trends in the DIURNAL range for all stations with hypothesis tests for trend
Asymmetry in daily maximum and minimum temperatures that that relates global warming to a
shrinking of the diurnal temperature range and asymmetrical warming of nighttime temperatures have
been previously noted (Michaels, 1990) (Karl, 1993) (Kukla, 1993). It has been proposed by these
authors that the asymmetrical warming of nighttime daily minimum temperatures over warming in
daytime daily maximum temperatures by greenhouse gas driven anthropogenic global warming can be
explained in terms of cloud formation. Clouds reflect solar radiation upward during daylight and
terrestrial radiation downward day and night with a net feedback effect that can be negative, zero, or
positive depending on radiation frequency (Ceppi, 2015) (Ceppi, 2016) (Soden, 2011) (Bony, 2015).
Regardless of the net 24-hour effect of clouds, the mechanism suggests negative feedback in daylight
and positive feedback at night and therefore global warming should cause the diurnal range to shrink by
way of increased cloud formation (Karl, 1993).
Arithmetically, the long term trend in the diurnal range is simply the difference between the trends in
TMAX and TMIN as [trend(diurnal) = trend(tmax)-trend(tmin)]. The mean seasonal pattern of these
trends for all 34 stations is presented in the right panel of Figure 8 and it shows that the greatest
asymmetry (shrinking of the diurnal range) is seen in the warm summer months of June, July, and
August with no shrinking January to April and very little shrinking September to December. This pattern
is consistent with the proposed cloud mechanism of asymmetry.
The overall warming trend can be estimated as the simple arithmetic averageof the warming trends in
TMAX and TMIN. The average warming trend is expected to drive cloud formation and through cloud
fomation, the shrinking of the diurnal range. This mechanism implies that the sum of the trends in TMAX
and TMIN [trend(tmax)+trend(tmin)] should be negatively correlated with the difference [trend(tmax)-
trend(tmin)] since the sum represents the warming trend and the difference represents the trend in the
diurnal range. The correlation has to be be negative because warming causes the diurnal range to
shrink.
However, this correlation, computed using all 408 month by month trends in the ensemble (Figures 10-
18), is found to be a small positive value that is not statistically significant. The hypothesis test is shown
below3. This result is inconsistent with the cloud formation mechanism of observed temperature trend
asymmetry in TMAX and TMIN.
R =0.083746
1-R2 =0.992987
SE =0.049333
TSTAT =1.697551
PVALUE =0.090359
3
The standard deviation of the correlation coefficient is estimated using Bowleys method (Bowley, 1928).
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Full span linear OLS trend analysis is carried out for daily maximum temperatures, daily minimum
temperatures, and the range of the diurnal cycle with daily data from 34 USHCN stations in 17 states.
The sample period ranges from 110 years to 123 years from the late 19th century to 2014. The analysis is
carried out separately for each calendar month on a month by month basis. Twelve calendar months
and 34 USHCN stations generate an ensemble of 408 station-months and 408 trends for each variable.
Hypothesis tests yield a combination of warming trends, cooling trends, and absence of statistically
significant trends as shown in Figure 9. Though the absence of trends dominates overall, there are more
warming station months than cooling station-months and there are more TMIN warming station-months
than TMAX warming station-months. The ensemble of 408 station-months shows a net warming trend
over the sample period of more than a century of daily data at a rate of 0.277 DCPC4 for TMAX, 0.576
DCPC for TMIN, and an average of 0.427 DCPC for TMAX and TMIN trends combined.
The asymmetry in the warming trends for TMAX and TMIN implies that the diurnal range is shrinking
over the sample period at a rate of 0.3 DCPC. This phenomenon is thought to be related to cloud
formation because during daylight (TMAX) the albedo effect of clouds overcomes their blanket effect
while at night (TMIN) the blanket effect dominates completely. The greater asymmetry in summer than
in spring and winter observed in the data (Figure 8) is consistent with this mechanism but the negative
correlation between (TMAX+TMIN) and (TMAX-TMIN) implied by the cloud mechanism is not found in
the data.
The results support the generally held belief that there has been a net warming trend in the past century
in the lower 48 states of the USA as measured by USHCN daily temperature data but the greater
warming in the nighttime measure TMIN than in the daytime measure TMAX is anomalous in the
context of the proposition that the observed warming is driven by the greenhouse effect of atmospheric
CO2 because this mechanism is expected to affect daytime temperatures equally if not more so than
nighttime temperatures.
It is also noted that temperature trend behavior among the stations is diverse with different
combinations of warming trends, cooling trends, and no trend. The observed diversity is not indicative
of a primary global temperature trend driver that overwhelms natural and regional variability. All data
and computational details used in this study are available for download from an online data archive
(Munshi J. , USHCN Paper Archive, 2017).
4
Degrees Celsius per Century
5. REFERENCES
Allen, M. (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature,
458.7242 (2009): 1163-1166.
Baker, D. (1975). Effect of observation time on mean temperature estimation. Journal of Applied
Meteorology, 14.4 (1975): 471-476.
Bony, S. (2015). Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity. Nature Geoscience , 8.4 (2015): 261-268.
Bowley, A. (1928). The standard deviation of the correlation coefficient. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 23.161 (1928): 31-34.
Box, G. (1994). Time series analysis: forecasting and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Callendar, G. (1938). The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64.275 (1938): 223-240.
CDIAC. (2014). Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Retrieved 2017, from CDIAC / ORNL:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2013.html
Ceppi, P. (2015). Connections between clouds, radiation, and midlatitude dynamics: A review. Current
Climate Change Reports , 1.2 (2015): 94-102.
Ceppi, P. (2016). Mechanisms of the negative shortwave cloud feedback in middle to high latitudes.
Journal of Climate, 29.1 (2016): 139-157.
Draper&Smith. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley.
Easterling, D. (2002). Recent changes in frost days and the frost-free season in the United States. Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, 83.9 (2002): 1327-1332.
Easterling, D. (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters, 36.8 (2009).
Gillett, N. (2013). Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5
simulations. Journal of Climate, 26.18 (2013): 6844-6858.
Hamilton, L. (2009). Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. International Journal of
Climatology, 29.15 (2009): 2348-2352.
Hamilton, L. (2013). Blowinin the wind: Short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate change.
Weather, Climate, and Society, 5.2 (2013): 112-119.
Hansen, J. (1981). Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Science, 213: 957-66.
Hansen, J. (1988). 1988 Hansen Senate Testimony. Retrieved 2016, from Procon.org:
http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf
Hansen, J. (2001). A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres , 106.D20 (2001): 23947-23963.
Hansen, J. (2010). Global surface temperature change. Reviews of Geophysics, 48.4 (2010).
Hansen, J. (2016). Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate
modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming could be dangerous. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 16.6 (2016): 3761-3812.
Hayhoe, K. (2008). Regional climate change projections for the Northeast USA. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13.5-6 (2008): 425-436.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of
Statistics, 6:2:65-70.
IPCC. (2007). AR4 WG1 Chapter 7: Couplings between changes in the climate system and
biogeochemistry. Geneva: IPCC.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis. Geneva: IPCC/UNEP.
Johnson, V. (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Retrieved 2015, from Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19313.full
Karl, T. (1993). A new perspective on recent global warming: asymmetric trends of daily maximum and
minimum temperature. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74.6 (1993): 1007-1023.
Karl, T. (2015). Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Science ,
348.6242 (2015): 1469-1472.
Karoly, D. (2006). Anthropogenic warming of central England temperature. Atmospheric Science Letters,
7.4 (2006): 81-85.
Kaushal, S. (2010). Rising stream and river temperatures in the United States. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 8.9 (2010): 461-466.
Kukla, G. (1993). Nighttime warming and the greenhouse effect. Environmental science & technology,
27.8 (1993): 1468-1474.
Lacis, A. (2010). Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earths temperature. Science,
330.6002 (2010): 356-359.
LaDochy, S. (2007). Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature
trends. Climate Research, 33.2 (2007): 159-169.
Lawrimore, J. (2011). An overview of theGlobal Historical Climatology Network monthly mean

temperature data set, version 3. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116.D19 (2011).
Matthews, D. (2009). The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature ,
459.7248 (2009): 829-832.
Menne, M. .. (2015). United States Historical Climatology Network Daily Temperature, Precipitation, and
Snow Data. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.: Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center .
Michaels, P. (1990). The greenhouse effect and global change: review and reappraisal. International
Journal of Environmental Studies.
Mitchell, J. (1958). Effect of changing observation time on mean temperature. Bulletin of the American
Meterological Society, 39: 83-89.
Munshi, J. (2015). A Robust Test for OLS Trends in Daily Temperature Data. SSRN,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631298.
Munshi, J. (2017). Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Australia . Retrieved 2017, from
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2968352
Munshi, J. (2017). Anomalous Long Term Trends in USHCN Temperature Data. Retrieved 2017, from
SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2939569
Munshi, J. (2017). OLS Trend Analysis of CET Daily Mean Temperatures 1772-2016 . SSRN Electronic
Journal, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2951507.
Munshi, J. (2017). USHCN Paper Archive. Retrieved 2017, from Google Drive:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByzA6UNa41ZfcnVvTVJWTkxPQmM
Munshi-Edwards. (2016). The OLS Warming Trend at Nuuk, Greenland. Retrieved 2017, from SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2776867
NielsenGammon, J. (2011). The changing climate of Texas. The impact of global warming on Texas,
(2011): 39-68.
Parker, D. (2005). Uncertainties in central England temperature 18782003 and some improvements to
the maximum and minimum series. International Journal of Climatology, 25.9 (2005): 1173-
1188.
Parker, D. (2007). Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112.D18 (2007).
Pederson, G. (2010). A century of climate and ecosystem change in Western Montana: what do
temperature trends portend? Climatic change, 98.1 (2010): 133-154.
Pielke, R. (2002). Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from
eastern Colorado, USA. International Journal of Climatology, 22:4:421-434.
Pielke, R. (2007). Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface
temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 112.D24 (2007).
Plaut, G. (1995). Interannual and interdecadal variability in 335 years of central England temperatures.
Science, 268.5211 (1995): 710.
Revelle, R. (1957). Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an
increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus, 9.1 (1957): 18-27.
Siegfried, T. (2010). Odds Are, It's Wrong. Retrieved 2016, from Science News:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong
Soden, B. (2011). The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled oceanatmosphere models.
Geophysical Research Letters, 38.12 (2011).
Solomon, S. (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences, (2009): pnas-0812721106.
Trenberth, K. (2013). An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth's Future, 1.1 (2013): 19-32.
Trenberth, K. (2014). Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nature Climate Change,
4.10 (2014): 911-916.
Tung, K. (2013). Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110.6 (2013): 2058-2063.
Williams, C. (2006). United States historical climatology network daily temperature, precipitation, and
snow data. Oak Ridge, TN: ORNL/CDIAC-118, NDP-070, Available on-line [http://cdiac. ornl.
gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/usa. html].
Zickfeld, K. (2009). Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106.38 (2009): 16129-16134.
6. APPENDIX: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics for daily maximum temperatures (TMAX) and daily minimum temperatures (TMIN)
for the full sample period are listed below for all 34 USHCN stations studied. Included are the average
value (AVG), standard deviation (STDEV), the minimum value (MIN), the maximum value (MAX), and the
range (MAX-MIN). Also included is the mean diurnal range for each month (DIURNAL). All values listed
are in degrees Celsius.
Figure 19: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Alabama & Arkansas
Figure 20: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: California, Colorado, & Florida
Figure 21: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Florida, Iowa, & Idaho
Figure 22: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Illinois, Massachusetts, & Maine
Figure 23: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Maine, Michigan, & Minnesota
Figure 24: : Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Montana, New York, & Texas
Figure 25: Descriptive statistics for TMAX and TMIN: Texas, Utah, & Washington

Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Ushcn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Long Term Temperature Trends in Daily Station Data: Ushcn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LONG TERM TEMPERATURE TRENDS IN DAILY STATION DATA: USHCN

1. INTRODUCTION (Menne, 2015)

Figure 1: Descriptive Statistics for Choteau, Montana 1893-2014

2. DATA AND METHODS

Figure 2: List of selected USHCN stations and their geographical distribution

Figure 9: Meta-analysis of hypothesis tests in Figure 10 to Figure 12

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Draper&Smith. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley.

Lawrimore, J. (2011). An overview of theGlobal Historical Climatology Network monthly mean

6. APPENDIX: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

You might also like