Ukraine – Stability and Reliability

I’m starting on the Europe set, Ukraine first

On a whim, I decided to start making the European graphs from near the bottom of the list up. And ran smack into Ukraine. Long history, stable trend. Even in the face of high year to year volatility in any given month. So the vertical scale is +/- 12 C for monthly anomaly excursions, yet we have an average that runs right along the zero line. Had to make it Hot Pink to see it. And just look at that trend line! Dead Flat. It looks like Ukraine gets a complete pass on Carbon-Guilt. Even the 1990 changes didn’t change the trend much.

This is a very large graph, so you will want to click on it to get a larger more readable version.

Ukraine Hair Graph of Monthly Anomalies and Running Total

Ukraine Hair Graph of Monthly Anomalies and Running Total

We saw in earlier postings that Germany had no warming and that Turkey is even slightly cooling (with a commenter posting a link to a peer reviewed paper showing that when you used all the thermometer records for Turkey, they are cooling, and it is only selective listening skills that let GHCN show warming for Turkey.) Now we can add Ukraine to the European Stability Group.

It’s beginning to look like Europe will be made up of a stable core set of countries, and then some fringe ones with a lot of warming. I’d guess those with a lot of new air conditioners and airports added in the last 30 years or so.

Russia, for example, shows a “step function” higher on adding a load of thermometers, then another step function higher during The Great Dying of Thermometers. The net effect is to add about 1 C of “warming”, but largely due to thermometer changes, IMHO.

European Russian Sector (West of the Urals) Hair Graph of Anomalies

European Russian Sector (West of the Urals) Hair Graph of Anomalies

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in dT/dt and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Ukraine – Stability and Reliability

  1. tarpon says:

    Do you think they added more thermometers so they would have a larger selection for choosing the warmer ones?

    REPLY: [ There is what looks like evidence of “tuning” in the thermometer counts and locations. The data set is created at a moment in time (that seems to be near the decade markers when we get offsets and bullseyes…) so the “adding and dropping” are not done over the decades, but at the moment of creation. So one could “add a thermometer” that’s cooling in 1955 then drop it and swap it for a warming one in 1988 both in the same day during ‘creation”. This is being done again right now. GHCN version 3 is due out Real Soon Now. I’d heard it was to be February, but something seems to have caused them to delay the release ;-) Frankly, that whole “choosing thermometers” thing just looks like a giant “Dig Here”. Under the “Let’s Talk Turkey” thread there is a pointer to a peer reviewed paper the looked at all the Turkish thermometers and found cooling. And the Russians too have protested that they think selective use of thermometers is going on. I think it’s well worth a good dig, but need to finish this process now. -E.M.Smith ]

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Chiefio, I have noticed that Warmists do not “openly” visit this site and when I have tried to encourage them to, they make excuses about your commentary putting them off, (which to me is one of the best bits).
    I wonder what they would think of this analysis?
    Over on Bart’s Site there are various discussions going on about Temperatures Vs CO2 and a couple of posters have raised the issue of how conflicted the Temp data is, I don’t think they realise just how bad it is.

    REPLY:[ I required that the Warmers:

    1) Be Polite.
    2) Address the data, not the messenger.
    3) Not decorate the place with “Here is a link to as site that thinks you are an idiot”.
    4) Not attempt to start food fights that distract me from making progress.

    They seem to have issues with that… Fine with me. I’m “working to goal” not “working for hit counter”… -E.M.Smith ]

  3. A C Osborn says:

    Do you have a Site Visitor Counter?

  4. A C Osborn says:

    I see the Flags of visitors, but I was thinking of a daily or overall count.

    REPLY: [ Nope. WordPress lets me see it if I choose to look. It runs a few thousand a day, more or less. More when I put up something new, less when I’ve not posted for a couple of days. And it peaks when some controversy breaks out. -E.M.Smith ]

  5. oldtimer says:

    I appreciate your explanatory comments as you produce the graphs. Am I right in thinking that Europe is the last lap on processing the raw data (such as it is) into graphical format? If so, have you decided on your next steps?

    One thing that would be helpful to a layman like myself is a summary of your conclusions so far eg on data gaps, thermometers disappearing and sometimes reappearing, oddities in the series and so forth with the implications of all of this for the reliability of the temperature record made publicly available.

    It seems to me that it is necessary to get a handle on this raw data before considerations of gridding, homogenisation and how temperature anomalies really should be calculated.

    REPLY:[ I have Europe and Africa yet to go. I’m doing Europe now. Africa probably toward the end of next week. After that comes a bunch of comparison sets and evaluation. I was going to do the evaluation one chunk at a time as I did graphs, but got a “Can you hurry up and do a graph for …?” on a couple of places. So I’ve “just run fast and done graphs”. Now I’m getting “Can you do analysis and explain what it means?” questions. 8-} Sometimes you just can’t win ;-)

    The “thumbnail sketch” is that the thermometer data are cooked. The “simple temperature average” series shows a LOAD of thermometer changes all over the place. This “anomaly series” shows that it comes through anomaly processing rather clearly. Further, it shows differential patterning by political entity (country) and by thermometer count. Not much to do with CO2.

    After I’ve done all the gaphs, then will come “compare, contrast, and analysis”. That ought to take about a month all told to complete, maybe more. We’ll see. After that will come comparisons of this form of anomaly processing with how GIStemp and other do it to see if they “fix what I find” or if they “have similar issues with instrument change”. (Early comparrison of GISS charts looks like they make it worse…) with more analysis as time permits. -E.M.Smith ]

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Chiefio – format problem seems to have crept in. On my browser (IE8) the font goes haywire at the Macau section.

    I’m with you, methinks GISS actually means Goddard Institute for Strange Statistics. A shame, Goddard himself is one of my heroes.

    REPLY: [Ah, found an “h3” heading that was not terminated (the ending “/h3” had no “/”). Ought to be fine now.

    There also was some kind of “issue” last night with WordPress. There was a comment from a person who had some German quoted in it and I hit “approve”, but then a few minutes later it was awaiting approval again, so I hit “approve” again. Then it just vanished… (So if that poster reads this, please re-submit; I did want the comment to “go up” but it went away against my will…) So, try again and see if it was just “something in the ether” then… – E.M.Smith ]

  7. Pingback: Eco-economics « TWAWKI

  8. Hi EM. I was looking at the ‘Official’ High Quality data set released in Australia and comparing it to the old historical records for the same sites. There has been some serious tinkering with the records to create an artificial upward trend.
    Have a look at
    it shows a trend that the academics here know about but do not dare talk about!

    REPLY: [ I’ll take a look at it. FWIW, I’ve observed that English Language countries seem to have more data buggery than non-English language countries. Don’t know why (many possibles. Everything from “shared standards” and “read the literature” to “easier to conspire in a shared language and culture”, but who knows…) Still, you look at England with the CRU crew, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC, The BOM in Australia, etc. Hockey sticks abound. Then you look at The Former Soviet Union countries and the Dutch, many flat countries and only a few with bumps up in temperatures. (And some of them look like an NCDC post processing artifact…) But one mans “tinkering” is another mans “QA Enhanced process”. The “problem” comes in, IMHO, when that “Enhanced” recent data gets compared to “straight archival” data and then folks try to make a trend out of comparing two different things. -E.M.Smith ]

  9. oldtimer says:

    Thank you for your reply. I was not trying to pressure you into speeding up, just trying to get an idea of the intended content and sequence of your analyses. My reason for asking is set out below.

    We have a general election coming up here in the UK in the next 40 days or so. We are saddled with a harmful Climate Act. MPs, apart from 4 or 5 who voted against it, have swallowed the AGW hypothesis hook, line and sinker. Since the CRUgate affair broke, I have been writing reasoned letters to my MP to draw his attention to the flaws in this hypothesis. I seem to have his attention, and that of a couple of his fellow shadow ministers. It seems to me that your work on the original temperature data is unique and fundamental to the truth or falsity of that hypothesis. At some point I should like to draw his attention to the analyses that you are making.

    REPLY [ No worries. Notice all the “smiley faces” on the reply. That’s to point out that I’m not emotionally invested in which way my sloth manifests. 8-} I’ll likely careen from too many graphs to too much analysis and back again a couple of more times before all this gets done! FWIW, I’m fine with “taking nudges” as to what folks would like to see done first. I’ll still do what grabs my interest “very first”, but that’s about a half dozen out of 100+ graphs… And frankly, I don’t really care if I do the Atlantic group next or the Mediterranean. So a “nudge” can easily get the UK done “soon” (and I doubt if many folks will really care if it “jumps queue” on Moldova… ;-)

    The dT/dt method is “dirt simple” and I’m hoping that someone else picks it up and tries it (with a different code base to assure “no bug need apply” ). It seems to reproduce what is in our recorded history rather well and that gives me some confidence in it. That there is not a single data item “homogenized”, made up, filled in, or tossed out; that also has a certain “charm” to it… It also does a dandy job of pointing out exactly where the “data diddling” looks to have happened with “pivots” in 1990 and “bullseye” volatility compression at “change of STUFF” points. So I’m going to run it over all the data in a mad dash, highlight some interesting bits on the way, and then come back and wander through the graphs picking out “interesting bits” to explore more. After that? Who knows. It will depend on what the data tells me ;-) and a little bit on what folks would like to see next …
    -E.M.Smith ]

  10. Jeff Alberts says:

    Don’t know why (many possibles. Everything from “shared standards” and “read the literature” to “easier to conspire in a shared language and culture”, but who knows…) Still, you look at England with the CRU crew, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC, The BOM in Australia, etc.

    Well that’s just ludicrous. Everyone knows Australians don’t speak English. :P

    REPLY: [ Sorry, I’ve got Texas relatives and everyone knows that Texan tain Anglesh noway soes I juss gess I got usta unerstanting it’tall and plumb fergot! ;-) Isn’t Australian a distant relative of Texan? They both have horses and a desert “out back” 8-} -E.M.Smith ]

  11. T G Watkins says:

    Very entertaining, much applause.
    The poor people of Gibraltar must be living in fear for, although the contagion passed them by, they know there is no escape and the rapid catching up of temperature will surely kill all the apes.

  12. Hi Em you said:-
    The “problem” comes in, IMHO, when that “Enhanced” recent data gets compared to “straight archival” data and then folks try to make a trend out of comparing two different things.

    Can I check that I understand your comment… I think you are saying that the “problem” is ‘owned’ by the AGW Alarmists that are are shown to have altered the data without good cause.

    “… comparing two different things” … but we are searching for the same truth I hope!
    Was your comment being critical of what I had done in
    I hope you feel its a reasonable thing to compare unadjusted with adjusted data? I presume the aim of these adjustments is to remove UHI effect. However if you see a rural site apparently gaining a big warming trend where none existed in the straight archival data, then something is wrong with the UHI adjustment. Perhaps they are just ‘adjusting out’ the Rural Cold Ocean effect ‘cos it spoils their story ;)
    You have done a huge amount of work here – thanks!

    REPLY: [ Don’t read too much into a speculative comment ;-) I was just speculating that the meaning behind the duplicate number change was causal and might be processing. We don’t know that yet. It’s a “line of investigation” not a conclusion. OK, with that said: I’ve not read the stuff at your link yet. Maybe after I’ve got the rest of Europe graphs posted… so nothing is directed at your “stuff” at all since I don’t know what’s in the link. As per “ownership” I’d speculate it was NCDC staff during the creation of the modification change (but that’s just rampant speculation).

    On comparing different series: You can do it if you are careful. My worry is that it was done mindlessly by computer program on the ASSUMPTION that nothing of importance changed. I could easily see someone making a “QA” change at NCDC that had differential impact on cold excursions (and their resultant anomalies), then GIStemp just running with it. No people involved in evaluating it…

    So while I don’t like comparing different things if I have a choice, you can do it if you are careful and allow for the “issues”. It is also perfectly valid to compare two different things expecting them to be different for the purpose of measuring the difference. So rural vs urban to find the delta is a great idea, even though it is comparing two different things.

    For example, you have the BMI. Body Mass Index. Millions of folks are harassed about their weight and eating habits based on a MASS to HEIGHT ratio. But it ignores that Africans generally have much longer legs (heat adapted) and Northern Germanic / Slavic people can have very short legs (cold adapted). It’s an incredibly stupid index that compares a 7 foot beanpole Watusi to a 5 foot gorilla with no legs and asserts to say something about relative food consumption. Just nutty.

    But if you had a BMI that looked at ethnicity, you could improve it. Comparing Beanpoles to Beanpoles or Gorillas to Gorillas and you can find the fat Beanpoles and the skinny Gorillas. FWIW, I’m one of those “legs shorter than body” folks with a high BMI due to being built like a gorilla with stumpy legs. My arms are almost as long as my legs… At my lightest ever (quite “skinny”) my BMI was just a touch on the “heavy” side of normal. I can NEVER have a low BMI, even if starved. Now look at an African model on the runway. Legs about 2/3 of height. The BMI numbers are telling you more about leg length than eating habits. But measure TORSO length instead of total height, and you’ve got a big improvement in the index. A better shot at finding high body fat levels instead of just short legs.

    So there are a lot of folks who compare different things stupidly; even well educated M.D.’s. But there is no reason why you could not compare Apples to Oranges as long as you do it carefully and know what you are comparing, why, and what will confound your comparison. It’s just my opinion that between NCDC and GISS nobody has done that ‘due diligence’. -E.M.Smith ]

Comments are closed.