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.

Iowa combined temperatures

Iowa has 23 USHCN stations ranging from Albia to Washington, but it has no GISS stations on the list, which makes life a little simpler this week. I did continue the study as to how far back to run the temperature averages based on the current population estimates around the stations. The best value for Iowa came out to be only using the average of the last five years data, and that correlates with Nebraska and Texas, while Oklahoma was debatable. So I’ll continue that check for a couple more states, but it is clear that there is some consistency in correlation between the states.

What is interesting about the USHCN stations in Iowa is that most of them are in communities smaller than 10,000 and yet there is the same trend in temperature variation with population that holds true in other states. This is clearly indicating that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is in error to segregate its temperature data with a cut-off of 10,000 as the minimum number it considers for a station. Vide their list for Iowa . (Although they use none of these stations in the truncated number of US stations that they have shrunk down to). Note the following is just a sample from the list.



And here is the correlation, using the past 5-year average temperatures for the USHCN stations, using the TOBS data.

Average of the 2004-2009 temperatures for the Iowa USHCN stations plotted v local population.

Given that the same form of plot is evident in the other states, perhaps it is time for a gentle cough in their direction?

So let’s now look at how we got there and what other interesting things might exist in the data. Firstly the stations appear to be spread relatively evenly over the state:


Location of the USHCN stations in Iowa (USHCN)

The trend for the Time of Observation corrected data shows that temperatures have been rising in the state since 1885, at a rate of 0.5 deg F per century.



Iowa is 200 miles wide, and 310 miles long. It runs from roughly 89 deg W to 96.5 deg W, and from 40.5 deg N to 43.5 deg N. The center of the state is at Longitude 93 deg 23.1’ W, Latitude 41 deg 57.7’ N. The highest point is at 509 m, and the lowest at 146 m, with a mean elevation of 335 m. The average USHCN station is at 93.5 W, 42.2 N with an elevation of 319 m.

In that regard looking at the correlation of temperature with the geographical considerations in the state, first there is a strong correlation with latitude:



There is the correlation with longitude, which is again likely a by-product of the increasing elevation of the state as one moves west.


There is a much clearer correlation with elevation:


And so we come to the correlation of station population and temperature. As in the past I ran a secondary calculation looking at the change in regression coefficients as I increased the average number of years averaged to derive the temperature at each station. One is 2009, two is the average of 2008 and 2009 etc. The population data in this case all came from the citi-data set, and there were no missing cities to look for.


I therefore used the 5-year average data to derive the relationship of temperature with population.


It is interesting that the coefficient for the slope of the line is running relatively consistently with values that I have found for other states. (If I use a 5-year average the value for Nebraska is 0.808, and for Texas 0.875.)

There is still, however, a difference between the homogenized data shown in the USHCN record, and that of the original TOBS temperatures.

P28 Pick Points

Half-a-dozen or so stories of interest:

As up to seven new LNG ports and a number of carriers are completed this year it is expected that supplies will increase to the United States. The projects have been planned for so long, and cost so much that gas must flow and be sold. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has had to develop policies on LNG , but even they defer to the market. Given this potential for over-supply the Freeport LNG terminal is looking into the potential for re-export, and local storage, since peak demand and supply may not be in phase. On the other hand recognizing that the time might be ripe to gain access to a cheaper source of power, Japan’s Tokyo Gas is looking at installing a new LNG terminal. To ensure supplies they have agreed to extend buying contracts for LNG supplies from Alaska. The Japanese, who are the largest users of LNG, need to do this to replace supplies that have been lost due to export reductions from Indonesia. The Alaskan gas sells for roughly 4/7ths of what the Japanese would have to pay for gas from Qatar.

In the lower 48, gas producers from shale are moving to stabilize supplies to the network. A new “Tiger Pipeline” is planned to collect and deliver for Haynesville shale gas into the interstate network. A new well is going into the Haynesville, that will run 17,000 ft horizontally. The Marcellus shale is also seeing some investor interest. XTO expects that gas (natural) prices will head back up before the year is out.

Hopes for energy price increases are hitting the wind industry, just as it comes out of a year where the USA added 8.5 GW of wind power. Of the major states adding wind power, California has seen the smallest recent growth, and in part that is because all the “easy” sites have now been taken, and the costs of permitting are now beginning to bite in the sites that are now in development. As a result Iowa is now second in wind power in the nation and has six manufacturers. But it turns out that the claim that the wind industry had more employees than coal mining relied on skewed counting (they counted everyone in wind, but only the miners in coal mining. But older wind farms are refurbishing with larger turbines and this also helps economically.

There will be a new 500 MW farm in Iowa, if they can get enough land, but construction will start in 3-5 years. In Rhode Island they plan on starting an offshore plant in 2010, they have enough wind for utility size operations which is level 3 on land (out of 7 with 1 being poorest), but have higher levels offshore, which is where the farm will go. In inland Northwest Missouri they now have a town (albeit only 1300 people) that receives all their power from the 4 nearby wind turbines.

The disruption caused by Total giving a contract to an outside, rather than domestic company in the UK may spread to other refineries and include nuclear power plants.

High temperatures in Australia, and particularly Melbourne played some considerable havoc with the Australian Open . Even as that ended, rolling blackouts are anticipated today because of the closure of the power link from Tasmania (due to overheating) . About 20,000 homes in the state (Victoria) are without power and the rise in the demand for energy has reached the limits of what can be provided. Bush fires are also threatening power lines, and a local coal company operation , while the drought is draining local water supplies . Locals are also concerned because of the secrecy of the order of priorities for load shedding.

It is not only in California and Australia that water supply is a problem. In the Central Asian republics Russia is stepping in to sort out possible conflicts since the countries from which the main water supply comes (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan( want to develop hydropower, while those downstream (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) want the water for agriculture. The Tajiks are willing to offer the Uzbeks water for energy. Turkmenistan is also involved since they send out electric power that must pass through other countries to the end user.

Uzbekistan is demanding 10 per cent of the $0.03 per kilowatt paid by Tajikistan to Turkmenistan.
This year the Uzbeks are also charging Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan US$ 240 per 1000 m3, up from 145 dollars last year.

And the Tajiks are not taking kindly to the Russian intervention.

For more stories go to The Energy Bulletin or Drumbeat at The Oil Drum