![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwZP1nVeNPE6peMoD0i0NwvVI4MBW9nbLFOYAKlYr-OjpBQQNBcKpKDBbWjYuz0guw7ZQ1yLZU28vgwu9Jrtsn7QhwCv18-pB8P1LQduTAnMZEz5IJyKofH49gJTlM9uDmYObcIXlP8nbQ/s320/1.+North+Carolina+combined+temperaturs.png)
North Carolina has the same number of USHCN stations as South Carolina (29) but it also has four GISS stations (whereas SC had none). The four stations are at Asheville (with data from 1903, a complete set from Charlotte, Greensboro has only data from 1948 on, and Raleigh. The average of the GISS stations shows the same drop that occurred in the states further South.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVomNYoZc80aOBuEylwT6ua3P9G_yqh8x78LpA4sYiOtaORrTYmHclOhq2sbKqbDCS8XS79CSWolrt7dpd_0s0UyQgxJgzLDWIuBIGRlA4OHzq7U-aptPQKWh6uyrz-NzaYAy-AeMxLt3L/s320/2.+SC+GISS+v+time.png)
Comparing this to the homogenized data from the stations in the USHCN, the drop is found, using the larger number of stations in that set of stations.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibF-47Q1O-uw_akPHjbr1WYE2sfTsss8XGzazGO6BlB2E5vzrOi_H8PxVA14yUl8CgB1gUzSvpLx3ytdcV4HAH05j4k6VaauhgDGFCfeQlP2Q1UigmzKutu_cyVnNlIi8KbAFTnS09nYtd/s320/3+SC+USHCN+with+time.png)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoGRSzHwZDhg46r5MKPJ1P86VJ-Q1tEUh63DepNuEAuFqextKGMLg0yKaJkrU4ABCkbb3J5ylaFnZwwXkc2p0VGAjIWfTE_dvQVEvBTPx_1VQl3mLrz6Xo7FIUWIfJaiSPZ07O1vwB0a2Y/s320/4+SC+TOBS+v+time.png)
North Carolina is some 500 miles long and 130 miles wide. It runs from 75.5 deg W to 84.25 deg W, and from 34 deg N to 36.35 deg N. The central latitude is at 35.60 deg N. That of the GISS stations is at 35.65 deg N, while the USHCN is at 35.6 deg N. The state rises from sea level to 2,037 m, with a mean elevation of 213.4 m. The average GISS location is at 312.7 m, while that of the USHCN stations is at 260 m.
Looking to find the population around the different stations, Cape Hatteras is more the name of the barrier island than the community, so I checked with Google Earth:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw0NUDDTU3Xy11afIflsW6sWf5BQ6h3W8DU6CX3yjeocJAUNWkOdUcTh8HFg6PSdEjDMSX83_X4mvnFbD5mKlCE7A2aBrBB-U7oWWqPjKwUlvacZR4OJAgCbshFwmLbVkIT-CV0dr3QUIw/s320/5+NC+Hatteras+station.png)
Frisco, checking with U.S. Beacon has a population of 401, though that was in 2000 and seems, from the photo, to be low.
And Transou does not appear in citi-data, so I also went to Google Earth for it. Looking around I decided it should have a population of about 50, although it turns out to be relatively close to Laurel Springs (population 1,400).
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibeE09NVJfpZv-uOFFv3IbhUpR-bipPvNxaFhLqQUhn7uZIPl6aZRJZeOJsrlc-lZ_43ISP8rJkWk7EYe0wiHujIx4u5pxUg-3KHyE6FINDYutr77UE74T__RI6Ytxgd1xoHems1SAZM0H/s320/6+SC+Transou.png)
The population around the GISS stations averages 361,732, while that of the USHCN stations is 61,431. That population difference might have caused a 0.47 deg difference making the GISS temperatures higher, while the difference is actually 0.22 degrees. That would be more than explained (about 0.5 deg) by the difference in elevation between the two averages.
Looking at the changes in temperature with location, North Carolina has the usual relationship with latitude:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj424ZhSfbAHrXdjX71AUcmxOC3QFvTqfNNds_phWQMQA3uLkJS0vvO_ln1X8I1I0TYYhFeP5XYlM339rmDjmEDA2RKH5R55Aq2teqA7sCTrA-c9bK5NQQP7GN4V_XWq1agTa3G-r9zZRvf/s320/7+NC+TOBS+v+lat.png)
The state rises fairly significantly to the west:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiynF7jhiGlSl1JBfbmubBR0u5XTJi6oDocNtcJxUtn0A6eL-Okrd65lSqGgcWmR1iDRCQ9piaRydflBlRRe-OTtyA_mjsdpZ_A6MZrN58O3h1hteyxSaoWmzTRxB7WwJB3USWfv2bFZEBC/s320/8+NC+TOBS+V+long.png)
However the temperature fall is more likely correlated with elevation (since it goes down on the other side of the mountains).
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_TLQa9ktnozdszElJH-Kwei7gBamhr_axuuDlysi4lAYbsNxEdTUADFjbG2CYXlyPkwJKymelUKbyoAVTaizMYCv_B-pab9rpbcc3zAsw70uoDAA8LR_XA8h3E2ERgm-3pOMTJzHr8Jsi/s320/9+NC+TOBS+v+elev.png)
Looking at the population effect, and considering the average temperature over the past 5 years as the dependent variable:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7nNes74ttYt-JKPKDeyVhVZwe64psNnJbktSSxQEOxLDXEZ5fyvdxQBGtLBcc3mulhyaJ-RHP_SqHNnsg6I-VRIuL5gOYlzaVxX3pR3vUhDR0lyPJFgxBRgJ_PEPGSuWks0KbDPqCNjVr/s320/10+NC+TOBS+v+pop.png)
Well it seems clear that the steep drop in temperatures around 1950 occurred in North Carolina also, so does it still hold true further north?
Oh, and that drop does not show up when one subtracts the TOBS data from the homogenized USHCN values, that adjustment is more linear.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGfdKTxL4US7EWXJ5p4r6-sZl0vLFcU_sXo0sQRyCcqV__R2_Y_NQeK-FaNrDYK_MDLDRaCDtkogTRy_vgrgli_nQX9S176xgETDGbZj0Nsxrtq6pOaypg3mqVx8VK66oTd44qHOn5GMm-/s320/11+NC+USHCN+-+TOBS.png)
0 comments:
Post a Comment