Southern Ontario Temperature Trends, More Evidence of Yearly Moderation Not Warming.

By Richard Wakefield Last Updated Jan 30, 2010

Abstract:
Temperature readings from Southern Ontario is very lacking. Most stations have a very short range of years, and only 10 of 76 still gather temperature data. Thus combining them all to give a whole picture of the region is problematic. Careful combining of the data to give a regional view was obtained and the trend is clear. Global warming in this region is a narrowing of the variability of the range of temperatures. There is no indication that recent years are any hotter than any previous years, if anything recent years have cooler summers, warmer and shorter winters. Comparing near by stations has revealed a lake effect which tends to moderate temperatures, less swing in the ranges over all months of the year, for stations located near the Great Lakes.

Page 1 of 26

Data:
In short, Canadian temperature records leave very much to be desired. It’s pathetic. Of the 116 stations in Southern Ontario, only 76 had any records at all. Of those 76 only a small handful has data in those records of any length. Those other 40 stations have no data in any of the temperature fields (Max, Mean, and Min). Here is how the data breaks down.
Percent of records per year
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

Figure 1: Percent of valid records per year for 76 Ontario stations. Figure 1 shows the state of the data. The quantity of data peaked in 1985 at 72%, and has dropped since, with a dramatic drop in 2006. Thus currently, of all stations in Southern Ontario is only 10% have data. Let’s be clear what this means. Of the 116 stations, which should have 38,900 records each, up until the 1950s there is actually much less than 5% data per year. This is because of when the stations came on stream and when they ended (yes, almost all have ended). What is also bizarre is that Environment Canada has no temperature data in any of its 8 Toronto stations.

Page 2 of 26

1900
A LB I ON FI E LD C E NT R E A LLIST ON NE LSON A RNP R I OR GR ANDON B A R R I E WP CC B E LLE V I LLE B LOOM FI E LD BLY T H B OWM A NVI LLE M OST E RT BR A DFOR D M UC K R E SE A R CH B R OCK V I LLE P C C B UR LI NGT ON T S C A M B R I DGE GALT M OE C HA T SWOR T H C OLDWA T E R WA R M I NST E R C OM BE R M E R E C OOK ST OWN COP E T OWN C ORNWA LL ONT HY DRO CR OM A R T Y DA LHOUSI E M I LLS DUR HA M E SSA ONT HY DR O E XE T E R FLI NT FOLDE NS FORT E R I E GE OR GE T OWN WWT P GLE N ALLA N GOR M LE Y A R DE NLE E GR A ND V A LLE Y WP CP GUE LP H A R BOR E T UM HA GE R SV I LLE HA M ILT ON A HA M I LT ON M UNI C I P A L LAB HAM I LT ON P SY CH HOSP I T A L HA M I LT ON R B G HAR R OW C DA LONDON INT 'L A IR P ORT LUC K NOW M ADA WA SK A M I DHUR ST M I DLA ND WA T E R P OLLUT I ON C ONT R OL P LA NT M I LLGROV E M I NDE N M ONT I C E LLO M USK OK A A NI A GA R A FA LLS NI A GA R A FALLS NP C SH P AI SLE Y P E T A WA WA NA T FOR E ST R Y P E T E R BOR OUGH A P I C T ON P OI NT P E LE E P OR T C OLB OR NE P OR T DA LHOUSI E P OR T HOP E R A V E NSHOE R E NFR E W R I DGE V I LLE R OSE V I LLE

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Figure 2: Start and end years for 76 stations in Southern Ontario that have data.

Page 3 of 26

Figure 2 shows when all 76 stations started, and stopped. 66 of them stopped and hence will not contain data going forward. This means there are just 10 stations in Southern Ontario still collecting temperature data. Ramifications of this are clear, the smaller the data set, the less accurate a picture we get of temperature trends. There are only 4 stations from 1900 that have a long continuous dataset, except they have ended. This means there is no station with a continuous single dataset from 1900 to 2009. This means it is difficult to give a continuous view of what the temperature has done in this region. Add to this that in some of the years where there is data, there are still gaps, missing days, in the data. There are three ways of dealing with this, each with it’s own problems. 1) Pick the highest and lowest temperatures form all the locations where data exists on the same day. For the average, one would average the mean temperature for all the data on that day. This would give the highest, lowest and average temperature as a whole for the region. 2) Pick one continuous station and fill in missing data from one station near by. This seems to be the approach climatologists use. 3) Pick one continuous station and fill in missing data from more than one near by station by comparing the differences of those stations with the continuous station based on common days. Problems with each are as follows: 1) A region like Southern Ontario can have a wide distance between stations, which have temperature differences by as much as several degrees. Temperature profiles for any given day vary greatly around the region and appears to follow a flow. Temperature changes in this region vary greatly from day to day due to the latitude and undulation of the jet stream. Low-pressure systems pull up warm air from the Gulf of Mexico as well as Arctic cold fronts that move across the region from west to east. This is simple to understand when one sees that heat waves, for example, will flow over a period of a few days over different parts of the region. Same with a cold front. In some instances a cold front will pass through only part of the region, while another part will see much warmer temperatures on the same day. As a low pressure system moves in the western part of the region would see the cold air mass while the eastern part experiences the warm air mass, with as much as a 10C difference. Thus missing data can’t just be filled in with near by stations with the same days’ data. 2) This process suffers the same problem as #1. If the closest near by station is far and underwent a different temperature regime then filling in missing data in station A with only that data from station B could be error prone and not give the proper profile. See Appendix I for why this cannot be done. 3) Is the closest one can get to filling in missing data to give a mini region. This requires comparing station A with data from other near by stations where their

Page 4 of 26

days exist together, then getting a profile of the differences between those days and then applying that difference to estimate what the temperature at A should have been. However, for the reasons explained in Appendix I one has to understand the problems with this method too. Thus, using #3 means we cannot really get a regional view, but back to looking at one location whose missing data has been augmented by an equation based on the differences in temps with neighboring stations. Fun stuff if someone wishes to try to find that equation, if one exists (there won’t be one if it is chaotic).

Results:
What we can do is look at a few profiles of temperature trends for the region.

Average of Yearly Mean Temp
10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Figure 3: Average of the mean temperature for 76 stations where data exists for each year. Trend line is ten year moving average. Notice Figure 3 seems to have same basic shape of the average of the mean yearly temperatures we saw in the Belleville example (see Appendix II for more details on this graph). But now we have data back to 1900 and up to 2009. This appears to show that the temperature is increasing. But is it? What is causing that shape? See the Belleville example for a discussion on what can change the shape of the average of mean temperatures. As in the Belleville example, we need to see the extreme ranges. Figure 4 shows the range of each year’s temperatures. There is no obvious increase in the upper range, it is actually decreasing. There is a recent warming in the lowest temperatures in recent years. Thus temperature is narrowing. Which can be seen in these graphs:

Page 5 of 26

50 40 30 20 10 0
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

-10 -20 -30 -40 -50

Figure 4: Temperature ranges for each year.
42 40 38 36 34 32 30
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

Figure 5A: Yearly Maximum temperatures. Trend line is 10 year moving average.
-20
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

-25 -30

-35

-40 -45

-50

Figure 5B: Yearly Minimum temperatures. Trend line is 10 year moving average. Page 6 of 26

Figure 5A shows the maximum temperatures for each year since 1900. It has clearly dropped since the 1920s. The minimum temperature in Figure 5B shows a recent warming since 1998 even though over that period the maximum temperature has dropped. In the Belleville example, the change in the average profile seemed to be highly correlated to the number of days in the extreme ends of the temperature range. For all of southern Ontario is the following:
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

Figure 6A: Days above 30C for each year. Trend line is 10 year moving average.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

Figure 6B: Days below -20C for each year. Trend line is 10 year moving average. Figure 6 is the number of days southern Ontario was above 30C. This number is calculated by using any location that was above 30C. Thus if location A was 29C but station B was 30C that station was used for the count. Same for the below –20C. Note the trends. The number of days above 30C has been flat since the 1970’s. What is interesting is the variation in the ranges has increased since the 1970s, with the last few

Page 7 of 26

years clearly below anything since the early 1900s. Thus we are having as many heat waves as they did in the 1900s, but far less than we did in the early 1960’s. Days below –20 however is clearly an increase until about 1995 when we see a precipitous drop in the number of very cold days. This means the region was not warming up in the summers at all while during the winters the number of very cold days increased except after 1998 when the number of days below –20 dropped considerably (nice for the heating bills). Yet, during that time the average of the mean temperature increased. Something is driving that trend, and it is not that the region is warming up.

Figure 7: Onset of winter for each year. The top line represents the first frost of the fall, whereas the bottom line represents the last frost of the spring.

Figure 7 graphs the first day in the fall of frost and the last day of frost in the spring. The area between the two lines is the growing season. We can see that the first frost has been consistent up until the late 1960s where it started to arrive in early October as opposed to late October and early November. With a gradual return to the pre 1960’s in recent years. Spring for most of the period until the 1950s was early May with a very narrow fluctuation. Afterwards spring arrived wildly between late March and late May with an average that appears to be earlier. But the variation, especially compared to the first frost in the fall, is remarkable since the 1950s. The length of the growing season, however, is generally increasing.

Page 8 of 26

240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130

Figure 8: Length of winter in days. Derived from the number of days from the first frost to the last frost. Trend line is 10 year moving average. Figure 8 clearly shows that the length of winter has been decreasing. Some 25 days shorter on average since 1921. But the swing in variation is large. For example 1993 was a very long winter, 232 days long, where as 2003 was a very short winter at only 147 days long second only to 1910 at 134 days. Next we look to see if the recent time is any different from a previous period.

Figure 9A: Comparing the maximum temperature range for each month for two periods. Vertical lines are from 1910 to 1997. The blue lines are the range of temperatures for the months for the period 1998 to 2009.

Page 9 of 26

Figure 9A compares the maximum temperature range of each month for the period 1910 to 1998 to the recent period 1998 to 2009. The recent period has no change in the first months of the highest maximum temperature, with a slight decreasing of the highest maximum temperature for the rest of the months compared to the previous period. Yet the recent period has a warmer lower maximum temperature for all months. Thus the recent period has a narrower range in the maximum temperatures for all months.

Figure 9B: Comparing the minimum temperature range for each month for two periods. Vertical lines are from 1910 to 1997. The blue lines are the range of temperatures for the months for the period 1998 to 2009.

Figure 9B shows the same narrowing in the range of minimum temperatures comparing recent (1998-2009) to the previous period (1900-1997). Thus no “warming” has occurred recently. What we are seeing is a narrowing in the ranges of temperatures. The next graphs are very interesting indeed and shows how the shape to the average of the mean temperatures came to be. Let’s look at the distinct phases in the average mean graph in Figure 10. So what is causing these changes outlined by the yellow arrows? To determine this, end points for these lines was compared, month-to-month, to each other. The second upper standard deviation of the maximum temperature plotted with the second lower standard deviation of the minimum temperature gives us 95% of the temperature measurements for each month we compare. The first comparison was 1910 to 1923, the first decline in the average mean temperatures.

Page 10 of 26

Figure 10: Average mean temperatures with yellow arrows pointing to trends. Figure 11A shows that the summer was warmer in 1923 vs 1910, yet 1923 saw a significant drop in average mean temperatures compared to 1910. The drop in the minimum temperature was more influential than the increase in the maximum temperatures that pulled the average temperature down. Years between 1910 and 1923 would have for the most part fallen within the two lines. So the arrows show a progression as the years went by.

Figure 11A: Change in temperature range for each month comparing year 1910 to 1923.

Page 11 of 26

Figure 11C: Change in temperature range for each month comparing year 1955 to 1970. Figure 11B: Change in temperature range for each month comparing year 1923 to 1955. Figure 11B shows a slight increase in the mid to end of the year in maximum temperature with a decrease in the first half of the year comparing 1923 to 1955. This corresponds to the second arrow in Figure 10, which is a significant increase in average mean temperature. The third arrow in Figure 10 is a slight downturn in temperatures. Comparing 1955 to 1970 this appears to be due to a slight drop in the first half of the year with virtually no change in the summer maximum temperatures. The last arrow in Figure 10 is a slight increase in average temperature. This came about due to a slight decrease in summer maximum temperatures comparing 2008 to 1970, with a significant increase in the minimum temperatures for almost all months. Thus this recent increase in average of the mean temperature is due to a narrowing of the range of temperatures and not to any increase in the maximum temperatures of any month.

Page 12 of 26

These four graphs compared the range of temperature between the upper second standard deviation for the maximum and lower second standard deviation of the minimum to the average mean temperature. The years selected were years that landed on the ten year moving average. However, one can see that the average temperature varied considerably from that moving average. Specifically 1971 and 1921 have extreme differences within the first yellow line. What’s going on to cause 4C difference? (and the IPCC is worried about a 2C increase.) So what is causing the increase in average temperature? Seems it’s more complex than just a narrowing of the extremes. There is much more going on. 1998 was claimed to be the all time high temperature, hyped up big time by the warmists. Indeed, for Southern Ontario it stands out as a peak in Figure 3 on the right side. But what makes it so different than 1997, which is below the ten-year moving average? Is it the number of days above 30C? 1998 had 62 days of temps above 30C while 1997 has 34. However, 1988 also had 62 and it’s average temperature is not as high as 1998. So more must be involved.

Figure 11D: Change in temperature range for each month comparing year 1970 to 2008.

1998 had only 44 days below –20C where as 1997 had 66. That would tend to pull the average up for 1998. 1988 had 73 days below –20C, which is one component that kept 1988 average lower than 1998. Thus so far, 1998 has more hot days and less cold days than 1997. But there is more. 1998 had 12 days where the max temp was below zero, while 1997 had 15. Virtually tied was the minimum days below zero, 232 for 1998 vs. 235 for 1997. But there is more. The length of winter was 177 days for 1997 and 173 for 1998. But there is more.

Page 13 of 26

The table below summarizes the differences between 1997 and 1998 compared to 1988. 1998 has a warmer average mean temperature, but not hotter than the other years. It even has the lowest of the maximum temperature of the three, but certainly the warmest of the minimum temperature of the three. Year # Day # Days >30C <-20C 198 8 199 7 199 8 62 34 62 73 66 44 Max Days Below 0C 28 15 12 Min Days Below 0C 240 235 232 Length Max of Temp Winter C 181 173 177 39 36 35.5 Average Mean Temp C 7.25 6.44 8.92 Min Temp C -41 -42 -35

Comparison of day-to-day temperatures between the two years of 1998 and 1997 shows a very clear pattern.

Page 14 of 26

Figure 12a: Plot of the difference between 1998 daily maximum temperature with 1997 daily maximum temperatures. Positive numbers indicate that 1998 was warmer that day than 1997. Smoothed line is 30 day moving average.

Figure 12a shows the difference of daily temperatures subtracting the maximum of 1997 from the maximum of 1998. Positive numbers means that that day in 1998 was warmer than the same say in 1997. Though day-to-day comparisons is not overly indicative, the trend of many days is. Notice that the largest number of warmer days was in April and May in the spring, and October to the beginning of December in the fall. The summer difference between the two years is virtually the same. Thus the warmer of the maximum temperatures for 1998 over 1997 is in the spring and fall, with a little warmer in the winter, but not the summer. The comparison for the minimum temperatures is even more striking.

Page 15 of 26

Figure 12b: Plot of the difference between 1998 daily minimum temperature with 1997 daily minimum temperatures. Positive numbers indicate that 1998 was warmer that day than 1997. Smoothed line is 30 day moving average.

Figure 12b clearly shows that 1998 was warmer in 1997 of minimum temperatures in late January and February, and late November and early December only. The rest of the year shows very little difference in the two years. So the conclusion that can be drawn is that 1998 was an exceptional year basically only because the spring was warmer, the fall was warmer, the winter was warmer except at the ends of the year, but importantly the summer temperatures were little different between the two years. So 1998 was not “hotter” than any other year, it was just less cold with warmer spring and fall. Big deal.

Discussion:
Each of these graphs shows definitive deflection points. Examples: Figure 5B shows a drop in the yearly minimum temperatures starting in 1981, and then it stopped and started to level off in 1930. Then made a significant increase in 2001. Figure 6A shows an increase in the number of days above 30C until 1924, which then leveled off since. Figure 6B shows a steady increase in the number of days below –20 until about 1995, and then drops precipitously

Page 16 of 26

• •

Figure 7 shows significant changes in the first day of frost around 1968 and the last day of frost shows a weird change after 1948. Figure 10 shows 5 periods in the average of the mean temperature, with inflection points at 1924, 1957, 1966, and 1984.

This of course begs the question, what is forcing these inflection years? Certainly something else is influencing, either man-made or natural, that counters any influences from CO2 (which has had a steady increase). Or is this nothing more than random shifts in the chaotic nature of global climate? Most likely. The fact that the temperature recently is more moderated, and not at all “hotter”, than previous means that the premise that increasing CO2 should be increasing the temperature cannot be true. The climate is not just that simple.

Conclusion
Records of temperatures for Southern Ontario are not complete, in fact far from it. Station numbers increased to a peak in the mid 1980s, and a substantial drop off to a small handful by 2009. Few stations have complete data, some are missing sections. Combining this data into a regional view was problematic, and different combining were done to obtain a view depending on the type of view. This did give a reasonable picture of what is happening in the region since 1900. Maximum temperatures have dropped dramatically since 1920 from a high of the 10 day moving average of 37C in 1936 to a low of 33 in the moving average in 2009. Minimum temperatures have increased from a low of -41 of the moving average in 1927 to a high of –35C in the moving average in 2009. In fact, since 1998 there has been a dramatic shift upwards in the winter minimum temperature with a drop in summer maximum temperatures. The number of hot days above 30C have dropped from 50 per year in 1955 to 35 days in 2009. The number of days below –20C has increased from 12 days in 1915 to 75 days in 1996, but then a dramatic drop back to just 8 days in 2008. Thus over this time frame Ontario got colder in the winters just when the warmists were claming the planet was heating up. Comparing extreme years with each other the trend is for warming spring and fall, and some warming of winters, with little change in summers, to if anything, cooler summers. Thus the conclusion here is the same as that arrived at from the Belleville example. Over time the range of variation in extreme temperatures is narrowing giving an increase the average mean yearly temperature. We are not heating up, our temperatures are getting more moderated.

Page 17 of 26

Appendix I
Variation in close proximity temperature records is very evident. Those stations close to the Great Lakes show a clear “lake effect” of the temperature. This “lake effect” tends to moderate the temperatures at those locations. This has serious implications if the current selection of stations kept open are near the Great Lakes. It will tend to make the entire area warmer just by keeping those stations and closing more rural stations away from the lakes. Two comparisons were made to confirm this. Port Hope vs Bellevelle and Peterbough vs Belleville.

Map of Southern Ontario showing the close proximity of Port Hope, Bellevelle and Peterbough. As you can see from the map these cities are a mere hour or two drive from each other, yet the differences in the temperatures on the very same day is profound.

Page 18 of 26

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

Appendix Figure 1a: Difference in maximum temperature between Belleville and Port Hope. Appendix Figure 1a is the maximum temperature of Belleville subtracted from Port Hope for all matching days. Notice the clear “heart beat” pattern between these two locations.

Appendix Figure 1b: Difference in maximum temperature between Belleville and Port Hope for 1963-1965 only.

Page 19 of 26

Appendix Figure 1c: Difference in minimum temperature between Belleville and Port Hope for 1963-1965 only.

Notice on both the maximum temperature differences and the minimum temperature differences, that Belleville has more swing, larger variation, compared to Port Hope that is directly on the lake. The difference is profound. In the summer Belleville can be as much as 8C warmer than Port Hope and in the winter as much as –6C colder. To make sure that Port Hope is experiencing something different, Belleville was compared to Peterbough, which is just an hour’s drive north of Port Hope.

Page 20 of 26

15

10

5

0 2/13/1969 2/13/1971 2/13/1979 2/13/1981 2/13/1983 2/13/1991 2/13/1997 2/13/1999 2/13/1973 2/13/1975 2/13/1977 2/13/1985 2/13/1987 2/13/1989 2/13/1993 2/13/1995 2/13/2001 2/13/2003 2/13/2005

-5

-10

-15

-20

Appendix Figure 1d: Difference in maximum temperature between Belleville and Peterbough for all matching days.

Appendix Figure 1d shows that there is still considerable differences between these two locations, but the “heart beat” is not there. What is discernable is that there is a significant degree of back and forth difference between these two locations, which appears to be dependant upon the season. Appendix Figure 1e is a plot of the difference in maximum temperature vs. the month of each of the years of all days that match between the two stations. Interesting that they vary just as wildly between each other, some days Peterbough is warmer than Belleville by 10C (negative on this plot) others, Belleville is warmer. Yet the variation between the two is more pronounced in the winter months. Compare that plot of the same for Belleville vs Port Hope below. The range of temperature differences each month is about the same, just it dips in the summer months. Thus shows that the lake effect is more moderating in the summer than in the winter. The implication of these two sets of comparison is clear. Stations that are just a hours drive from each other have a vary wide variance of the temperatures on the same day. It’s likely this is caused from cold and warm fronts that migrate across the region. But what it means is that you cannot use another station to fill in the gaps of missing days in a station. Page 21 of 26

Climate is complex and variant even on very small local levels due to influences other than CO2 emissions.

Appendix Figure 1e: Plot of maximum temperature difference vs. month of the year for all days matching Belleville and Peterborough. Vertical lines represent the full range of temperatures, the blue line is the standard deviations.

Plot of minimum temperature difference vs. month of the year for all days matching Belleville and Peterborough. Vertical lines represent the full range of temperatures; the blue line is the standard deviations.

Page 22 of 26

Appendix Figure 1f: Plot of maximum temperature difference vs. month of the year for all days matching Belleville and Port Hope. Vertical lines represent the full range of temperatures; the blue line is the standard deviations.

Plot of minimum temperature difference vs. month of the year for all days matching Belleville and Port Hope. Vertical lines represent the full range of temperatures; the blue line is the standard deviations.

Page 23 of 26

Appendix II Figure 7 is a graph of the average of the mean yearly temperature. Problem is with this graph is that it has no context. The average of the mean yearly temperature is not a measrument, it’s a calculation. It’s the average of the mean daily temperatures. The mean daily temperature is itself not a measurement but a calculation. It’s calculated by adding up all the hourly temperature divided by 24. Of course, the mean temperature will change with the seasons. This means the mean temperature will be highest in the summer and lowest in the winter. Here is what those range of mean temperatures looks like on a year-by-year basis.
40 30 20 10 0
19 00 19 05 19 10 19 15 19 20 19 25 19 30 19 35 19 40 19 45 19 50 19 55 19 60 19 65 19 70 19 75 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 05

Average Mean

Max of Mean

Min of Mean

-10 -20 -30 -40

Appendix II Figure 1: Highest, average and lowest of the yearly mean temperatures.

The average mean yearly temperature in Figure 7 is the middle line. Not so significant now when it is shown with the highest mean and the lowest mean of each year. And this is not the highest or lowest temperature range for each year. Notice the variation in the lowest (winter) mean temperatures swings much more than the summer temperatures, which is essentially flat. Thus the average of the mean temperature is highly influenced by the higher variation in the winter mean temperature calculations. Include the actual maximum and minimum temperature measurements and we have Figure 8 above. Include the standard deviations of those measurements and we have this graph.

Page 24 of 26

Appendix II Figure 2: Average of the mean yearly temperatures compared to the highest maximum, upper standard deviation, lowest minimum and lower minimum standard deviation.

With the actual yearly temperatures included the average of the mean of the yearly temperatures has even less significance. 65% of all the year’s temperature records fall within the upper and lower standard deviations. The upper standard deviation shows no warming, no change over the years. The lower standard deviation however shows a definite increase in temperatures. The lowest of the minimum shows wild deviations year to year compared to the highest maximum temperature readings. This means the winters have varied in their range of temperatures far more than the summer does. The gap between the lower standard deviation and the lowest of the minimum temperatures is much wider than the upper standard deviation and the highest maximum readings. Again, this shows a wild swing in winter temperatures. The impression given by the temperature anomaly graphs presented by the warmists gives the impression that the flat line of their graphs is what the temperature should be. That is, what the ideal temperature the planet should be. But this is flat wrong. The optimum temperature is what the summer tropical temperature is - 25-35C. This is what the planet has been in the summers for more than 500 million years. Cold winters we see in the temperate regions today is the anomaly, not the summers.

Page 25 of 26

The fact that these graphs show little change in the summer temperatures, with little variation compared to the winter temperatures provides evidence that the planet has a warm threshold it does not break through. There is a negative feedback that stops the planet from getting too hot; regardless what the climate models will tell you.

Page 26 of 26