Annual Rainfall Extremes at Manilla NSW: IV

IV. Some distributions had heavy tails

Graph of history of heavy tails in Manilla annual rainfall

This graph is based on applying a 21-year sampling window to each year in the Manilla rainfall record, then adding smoothing. (See “Note about Sampling” below.)

“Heavy tails”

In the previous postI plotted only the most extreme high and low values of annual rainfall in each sampling window. Now, I choose two rainfall amounts (very high and very low) to define where the “Tails” of the frequency distribution begin. These Tails are the parts that I will call “extreme”. I count the number of values that qualify as extreme by being within the tails.
In this post, I recognise heavy tails, when before I recognised long tails.


Back to the prelude “Manilla’s Yearly Rainfall History”.
Back to Extremes Part I.
Back to Extremes Part II.
Back to Extremes Part III.


Making the graph

The long-term Normal Distribution

The graph relies on the long-term Normal Distribution curve (“L-T Norm. Dist.” in the legend of the graph). That is, the curve that I fitted earlier to the 134-year record of annual rainfall values at Manilla NSW.
Histogram annual rainfall frequency Manilla NSWThe graph is copied here.

I defined as “Extreme Values” those either below the 5th percentile or above the 95th percentile of the fitted Normal Distribution. That is to say, those that were more than 1.645 times the Standard Deviation (SD = 156 mm) below or above the Mean (M = 652 mm). When expressed in millimetres of annual rainfall, that is less than 395 mm or more than 909 mm.
These ‘Tails’ of the Normal Distribution each totalled 5% of the modeled population, making 10% when added together.

The data

For each year’s 21-year sample, I counted those rainfall values that were lower than 395 mm (for the Low Tail) and those higher than 909 mm (for the High Tail). I added the two to give a count for Both Tails. To get a percentage value, I divided by 21.
I then found the ratio of this value to that of the fitted long-term Normal Distribution by dividing by 5% for each tail, and by 10% for both tails together. Ratios above 1.0 are Heavy Tails, and ratios below 1.0 are Light Tails.
That ratio, when smoothed, is plotted on the main graph at the head of the page.

Results

The resulting pattern of heavier and lighter tails, shown above, is similar to that found by using more and less extreme values, shown in the graph copied here.

Graph of history of extremes of annual rainfallAs before, there were less extremes in the 1900’s, 1910’s, 1920’s and 1930’s.
As before, there were more extremes in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
In the 1890’s, the “Tails” graph did not confirm the more extreme values that had been found earlier.

The 1990’s discrepancy

Extremes had been near normal through the last five decades in the earlier graph. By contrast, the “Tails” graph shows extremes in the most recent decade, the 1990’s, that were just as high as those in the 1950’s. Those two episodes differ, however: in the 1950’s only the high tail was heavy; in the 1990’s, only the low tail was heavy.
(For the 1990’s heavy low tail, see the Note below.)

The inadequacy of the data

Continue reading

Advertisements

Annual Rainfall Extremes at Manilla NSW: III

III. When extreme values were more or less extreme

Graph of history of extremes of annual rainfall

This graph is based on applying a 21-year sampling window to each year in the Manilla rainfall record, then adding smoothing. (See “Note about Sampling” below.)


Back to the prelude “Manilla’s Yearly Rainfall History”.
Back to Extremes Part I.
Back to Extremes Part II.
Forward to Extremes Part IV.


Making the graph

For each year, I have identified the highest and lowest values of annual rainfall in its 21-year sample. I already know the long-term mean annual rainfall at Manilla: 652 mm. From those values I have plotted the height of the maximum value above the mean (red) and the depth of the lowest value below the mean (green). Both may be called “Extreme Values”.
The difference between the maximum value and the minimum value in each 21-year sample is the Total Range. That also is a measure of Extreme Value, which I graphed in an earlier post.
The Total Range is equal to the sum of the two Extreme Values that are plotted. To make it easy to compare the three measures, I have divided the Total Range by two. I have  plotted that value in blue.

Two discordant results

All three measures agree well except at two dates: 1897 and 1980. On both occasions the Minimum Value (green) was not extreme at all, being only about 200 mm below the long-term mean. The Maximum Value in 1980 was rather extreme (about 330 mm above the mean). The Maximum Value in 1897 was the most extreme value that appears on this graph: 475 mm above the mean!
The pattern of this graph is dominated by this single feature. It is due to just one data item: the annual rainfall reading of 1129 mm in the year 1890, which was the highest ever.

The pattern

For extreme annual rainfalls at Manilla, this graph suggests the following:

They were more extreme than usual at the end of the 19th century and in the 1940’s.
They were less extreme than usual from the 1900’s through to the 1930’s.
They have been no more or less extreme than one should expect through all of the last five decades.

Comment

This graph depends on very simple statistics: the maximum, the minimum and the mean. Such a sparse data set is subject to the effect of chance. Also, although this is not obvious, this graph assumes that other features of the distribution of annual rainfall have not been changing, which is not true.

I have more to say on this topic.


Note about Sampling

I chose a 21-year sampling window to be wide enough to contain enough points for analysis, without losing time-resolution, or losing too many years at each end of the record from 1883 to 2016.
The first mid-year of a sampling window was 1893 and the last, 2006.
To remove jumps in the trace on the graph, I then applied a nine-point Gaussian smoothing function. That further reduced the years that could be plotted to those from 1897 to 2002.

Annual Rainfall Extremes at Manilla NSW: I

I. Better graphs of Manilla’s annual rainfall and its scatter

Manilla 21-year rainfall medians

Background

The first two graphs  are new versions of graphs in an earlier post, published also as an article in “The Manilla Express” (28/2/17) and in the “North West Magazine” (20/3/17).

In that article, I said:
“This Manilla rainfall record is one counter-example to the snow-balling catalogue of reported extreme climatic events.”
My claim was not well supported. While the two graphs showed that recent annual rainfalls have been normal, with little scatter, they do not show whether there were any extreme events.

However, Manilla’s annual rainfall record can be analysed to show extreme events. This post considers the Total Range within a 21-year sampling window as a measure of extremes. Using that measure, extremes were at their highest in the 19th century, before anthropogenic global warming began.

A following post discusses kurtosis as another measure, with a different result.


Back to the prelude “Manilla’s Yearly Rainfall History”.
Forward to Extremes Part II.
Forward to Extremes Part III.
Forward to Extremes Part IV.


The two improved graphs

The re-drawn graphs of historical records in this post use a 21-year sampling window, as before. They now have an improved smoothing procedure: a 9-point Gaussian curve. (The weights are stated below.)

1. Yearly Rainfall Totals

The first graph (above) represents the normal rainfall as it changes. The earlier version showed the arithmetic mean. The new version uses the median value (the middle, or 50th percentile value) instead.
The new version is less “jumpy” due to better smoothing. The median varies much more than the mean does. All the same, most features of the shape are unchanged: very low annual rainfall from 1915 to 1950; very high rainfall from 1955 to 1982; normal rainfall since 1983. There are some shape changes: rainfall before 1900 does not plot so high; from 1911 to 1913 there is a respite from drought; the highest rainfall by far now appears from 1970 to 1980.

As before, one can say:
“Present rainfall will seem low to those who remember the 1970’s, but the 1970’s were wet times and now is normal. Few alive now will remember that Manilla’s rainfall really was much lower in the 1930’s.”

In addition, this new version makes the pattern of growth and sudden collapse obvious. Collapses amounting to 100 mm came within a few years after both 1900 and 1978. Growth in the 58 years from 1920 to 1978 came at the phenomenal and unsustainable rate of 33 mm per decade. By the 1970’s, elderly residents of Manilla would have seen rainfall increase decade by decade throughout their lives.
(I noted this pattern of growth and collapse in an earlier post about Manilla’s summer rainfall.)

Manilla 21-year rainfall Inter-quartile Range

2. Yearly Near-Mean Rainfall Scatters

The plot on this second graph is changed only by better smoothing. However, the titles are changed. I realised that the Inter-quartile Range is not a good general indicator of spread or, in this case, of reliability of rainfall (as I had assumed). Inter-quartile Range measures the scatter of values that are close the middle: just the middle 50%. My new title refers to “near-mean” scatter. Any values that could be called “extreme” fall very far beyond the Inter-quartile Range.

Two more measures of scatter

An alternative measure of scatter in data is the Standard Deviation. In normally distributed data, the Standard Deviation extends 34% each side of the median (and mean). The “Standard Deviation Range” then extends from the 16th percentile to the 84th percentile. It includes a much larger proportion (68%) of a population than the Inter-quartile Range (50%) does. However, it also says nothing about extremes, which will lie far out in the residual 32% “tails” of the data.

The broadest measure of scatter is the Total Range from the lowest to the highest value. This measure does include any extreme values that exist in the data.
In the present case, each calculation uses a sample that includes only 21 points. The lowest data point is close to the 5th percentile and the highest data point is close to the 95th percentile of a similar continuous curve.

All three measures of scatter graphed

Manilla 21-year rainfall Total Range, Standard Deviation Range and Inter-quartile Range

Continue reading

Global Warming Bent-Line Regression

HadCRUT global near-surface temperatures

HadCRUtemp2lineThis graph, posted with permission, shows a bent line fitted to the HadCRUT annual data series for global near-surface temperature. Professor Thayer Watkins of San Jose State University Department of Economics posted it on his blog about 2009.

HadCRUTsmoothWithout knowing of this work, I constructed the second graph. I used data from the same HadCRUT source, but a data set smoothed by the authors.

In April 2013 I posted it to a forum thread in”weatherzone”.

Next, I added to that graph a logarithmic plot of global carbon emissions, similarly fitted with a series of straight trend lines.

Log from 1850 of world surface air temperature and carbon emissionsThis I included in posts to several forums: in a post to “weatherzone”, in a post to the Alternative Technology Association forum, and finally in a post to this blog.

Both Professor Watkins and I have fitted bent lines to the data. I fitted the lines by eye (for which I was accused of “cherry-picking”). Professor Watkins used an explicit process of Bent-Line Regression, minimising the deviations by the method of least-squares. Like me, he initially chose by eye the dates of the change points where the straight lines meet. But he then adjusted them so as to minimise the least squares deviations.
[See notes below on the method of Bent-Line Regression.]

The trend lines and change points are practically the same in the Thayer Watkins and the “Surly Bond” graphs:
1. (Up to Down) TW: 1881; SB: 1879.
2. (Down to Up) TW: 1911; SB: 1909.
3. (Up to Down) TW: 1940; SB: 1943.
4. (Down to Up) TW: 1970; SB: 1975.
As I said at the time, once straight trend lines are chosen, the dates of change points to fit this data series closely do not allow of much variation.

Relation to the IPO (or PDO) of the Pacific

Not by coincidence, Watkins and I both went on to relate the multi-decadal oscillations of Pacific Ocean temperatures to the global near-surface average temperatures.

My approach

I merely plotted my chosen global temperature change points on to the Pacific graphs (I chose to cite the IPO (Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation)). In two posts I noted (i) the way the change points in the HadCRUT global temperature series were close to those in the IPO, and (ii) the way the IPO seemed able to explain why the trend in global warming was “bent” in 1943 and 1975 but, in that case, could only sharpen the bends of 1910 and 1880.

Professor Watkins’ approach

AGT_PDO7Professor Watkins did a separate Bent Line Regression Analysis on the Pacific graphs (He chose to cite the earlier-developed PDO (Pacific inter-Decadal Oscillation)). His analysis “A Major Source of the Near-Sixty Year Cycle in Average Global Temperatures is the Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation” is here.

He admits the match is poor, with various lags and a different period. He concludes:
“Thus while the Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation appears to be involved in the cycles of the average global temperature there have to be other factors also involved.”

The significance of the IPO

Continue reading

HadCRUT Global Temperature Smoothing

Graph of recent HadCRUT4

As a long-term instrumental record of global temperature, the HadCRUT4 series may be the best we have. [See Ole Humlum’s blog in the notes below.]
I like to use the published smoothed annual series of HadCRUT4.  I find that this smoothing gets rid of the “noise” that makes graphs about global warming needlessly hard to read. I used the smoothed HadCRUT series to point out the curious inverse relation between the rate of warming and the rate of growth of carbon emissions in this post from 2014.  I will refer again to that post in discussing the use of bent-line regression to describe global warming.

The Met Office Hadley Centre published the smoothing procedure that they used for the time series of smoothed annual average temperature in the HadCRUT3 data set. The smoothing function used is a 21-point binomial filter. The weights are specified in the link above.
The authors discuss the fudge that they use to plot smoothed values up to the current year, even though a validly smoothed value for that year would require ten years of data from future years. Their method is to continue the series by repeating the final value. They had added to the uncertainty by using a final value from just part of a year.
They relate how this procedure had caused consternation when the smoothed graph published in March 2008 showed a curve towards cooling, due to the final value used being very cool.
They show the effect by displaying the graph for that date.
They maintain that the unacceptable smoothed curve (because it shows cooling, not warming) is due mainly to using a final value from an incomplete year, saying:
“The way that we calculate the smoothed series has not changed except that we no longer use data for the current year in the calculation.”
That web-page is annotated:
“Last updated: 08/04/2008 Expires: 08/04/2009”
However, this appears to be the current procedure, used with the HadCRUT4 data set.

For my own interest, I plotted the values from 1990 to 2016 of the annual series of HadCRUT4, averaged over northern and southern hemispheres. [Data sources below.]

On my graph (above), all points 1990 to 2016 are as sourced. I have plotted raw values 2017 to 2026 (uncoloured) as I believe they are used in the smoothing procedure. I have also left uncoloured the smoothed data points from 2007 to 2016, to indicate that their values are not fully supported by data.

I agree with Ole Humlum that it is very good of the Met Office to come clean on the logical shortcomings of their procedure for smoothing, but it would be even better if they ceased plotting smoothed points when the smoothing depends on data points for future years.
In my monthly series of parametric plots of smoothed monthly values of climate anomaly variables, I have faced the same problem. I smooth using a 13-point Gaussian curve. My solution is to plot “fully-smoothed” data points (in colour) up to six months ago. That gives a consistent mapping up to that date. The fifth month before now (plotted uncoloured) is smoothed with an 11-point Gaussian and so on, up to the latest month with a necessarily unsmoothed value.


Notes

1.
Ole Humlum’s blog “Climate4you”

[See: Index\Global Temperature\Recent global air temperature change, an overview\]

2.
HadCRUT4 data
Source of raw annual values:

Source of smoothed annual values:

Manilla’s Yearly Rainfall History

Lately, Manilla’s rainfall is normal, and more reliable
than it ever was.

Manilla yearly rainfall record, 21-yr smoothed

Yearly rainfall totals

The first graph helps to make sense of the history of Manilla’s rainfall, using the totals for each year. The actual figures make little sense, jumping up or down from one year to the next. The figures here have been calmed down. First, I replaced each yearly figure by an average of twenty-one years, ten years before and ten years after the date. Then I smoothed that figure some more.
The pattern is plain. There were periods in the past when there was much more or less rain than usual.
In four decades the rainfall was some 30 mm higher than normal: the 1890’s, 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. In four other decades, the rainfall was some 30 mm lower than normal: the 1900’s, 1910’s, 1920’s and 1930’s.
Rainfall here collapsed about 1900. The collapse was was widespread, as was recognised half a century ago.

Using the average line drawn across the graph (at 652 mm), you can see that rainfall was below average from 1902 to 1951: almost exactly the first half of the twentieth century. After 1951, rainfall was above average for the 44 years to 1995. Since then, the annual rainfall (as plotted) has been remarkably close to the 132-year average.
Present rainfall will seem low to those who remember the 1970’s, but the 1970’s were wet times and now is normal. Few alive now will remember that Manilla’s rainfall really was much lower in the 1930’s.

The pattern in Manilla’s history of annual rainfalls is better shown in a graph in a later post. The new graph, using 21-year median values, has a clear pattern of collapse, growth and collapse.

Manilla yearly rainfall scatters.

Yearly rainfall scatter

The second graph also groups the data twenty-one years at a time. It shows the scatter of yearly rainfalls in each group. More scatter or spread means the rainfall was less reliable. Comparing the graphs, times of high scatter (very unreliable rainfall) were not times of low rainfall, as one might think. Annual rainfall scatter and rainfall amount were not related.
Times of very unreliable rainfall came in 1919 (dry), 1949 (normal) and 1958 (wet). Times of reliable rainfall came in 1908 and 1936 (both dry). However, by far the most reliable rainfall came since 1992, extending to 2004 and likely up to this year.

Global warming

It has been argued that human-induced climate change will cause climatic extremes to happen more often in future. Already, when any extreme climate event is reported, someone will say that climate change has caused it.

The present steady rise in global temperature began about 1975. Does this Manilla rainfall record show more extreme events since that date? Definitely not! Quite the contrary. Continue reading

Climate trends for thermal soaring

For pilots who soar at Lake Keepit or Mount Borah: relevant summer climate data for Manilla, NSW, since 1999.

Graph of some summer climate variables 1999 to 2015.

Variables relevant to thermal soaring

From my data I have selected three variables that are relevant to success in soaring flight using thermals. I have chosen to use values for summer: a total or average for the three months of December, January and February.
The variables are:

  • The number of hot days, when the maximum temperature was over 33°C;
  • The number of sunny days, when the cloud amount seen at 9 am was less than two octas;
  • The average daily temperature range in degrees celsius.

Changing values of the variables

The graph shows that each variable fluctuated wildly, with each summer very different from the last. These variables often moved in the same sense.
Two summers had high values of all three variables: 2006-07 and 2013-14. Two summers had low values of all three variables: 2007-08 and 2011-12. I would expect that longer and faster thermal soaring flights would have been achieved in the summers with high values, compared to those with low values.

Trends

I have fitted linear trend lines, and displayed their equations within the graph.
All three trend lines slope down. This suggests that summer thermal soaring conditions have been getting worse.
I have cited the values of “R-squared”, the Coefficient of Determination. All three R-squared values are abysmally low. Even the best is below 20%, which can be taken to mean that more than 80% of the variation has nothing to do with the trend line shown.
You could say that the trends are nonsense, but we are dealing with Climate Change here!

The future

In the spirit of Mark Twain, we can extend the trend lines forward to where they come to zero:

  • There will be no hot days above 33° by the summer of 2118;
  • There will be no sunny mornings with less than 2 octas of cloud by 2073;
  • Days will be no warmer than nights by 2423.

That last date seems too remote to worry about. However, the daily temperature range will be unacceptable when it gets down to 11°. That is the current summer value for Lasham, England, after all. According to the trend, the daily temperature range will be worse than at Lasham by 2117. That is the same year that the very last 33° day is expected.

Global Warming

You may be surprised that the linear trend lines fitted to this data set slope downwards. It seems to contradict Global Warming. Continue reading