From Alan at Appinsys, who emails that he was inspired by this story on WUWT: A spot check on NOAA’s “hottest so far” presser
“NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record”
The following figure from NOAA shows the temperature anomaly of January – June 2010 compared to the 1971-2000 base period for 5×5 degree grids [http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html]
The problem with the above map: data quality and data manipulation.
The following sections provide some spot checks on the areas of the world exhibiting the most warming according to NOAA. The gridded historical data graphs shown in these sections are from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for January – June. (CRUTEM3 uses a 1961-1990 base period whereas the NOAA data above is for a 1971-2000 base period. This simply shifts the anomalies on the vertical scale, but does not affect the relative trends.)
It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data.
Spot Check – Northern Africa
It is apparently much hotter than usual in the Sahara. But where is the data? Several of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (indicated by the black arrows). Many of the others have one station with very limited historical data. There seems to be an inverse correlation between the number of stations and warming – more stations in a 5×5 degree grid and less warming is observed.
The map figure above shows the location of stations in the NOAA GHCN database (blue G or green B icons) and the red 5×5 icon indicates whether data exists in the Hadley CRUTEM3 database – a 5×5 degree gridded database used by IPCC (plotted at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx). The grid lines are 5×5 degree grids.
In many of the 5×5 degree grids showing 4 degrees warming according to the NOAA map, there are only one or two stations. The figure below shows some of the “hot-spots” in the NOAA map displaying January – June average temperature anomaly from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for 1900 – 2009. In no cases is the warming close to what NOAA indicates.
There is a severe problem with lack of historical data in Africa as well as lack of coverage and gaps in the data. NOAA’s algorithms spread the low quality data across areas that have no data as well as showing warming that isn’t really there.
One must really question the NOAA data when even the areas with many stations seem misrepresented. The following figure shows the area of eastern Turkey which has many stations and shows no warming in Jan-Jun through 2009, but suddenly according to NOAA has 4 degrees in 2010.
Spot Check – Greenland
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data have one station. The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data.
Some of the Greenland stations have long-term data. The figure below shows some of the “hot-spots” (that actually have data) in the NOAA map displaying January – June average temperature anomaly from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for 1900 – 2009.
Spot Check – Canada
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data
Historical Context
Many parts of the world do not have data for the first half of the 20th century. Without this historical context it is easy to create misleading impressions.
Northern Africa: A lack of historical context. The warming of 1 – 2 degrees since the base period is without historical perspective. This lack of history gives the false impression that the warming is significant.
Greenland: The historical context shows that warming and cooling by several degrees is not without precedent. Recent warming is less than the 1930s. The statement of warming since the 1980s gives the false impression that this is unprecedented.
Canada: Many stations in northern Canada are no longer maintained in the GHCN or CRUTEM3 databases. Warming has been 4 degrees over the last 40 years according to NOAA. The historical context shows similar warming in the 1930s (graph shown previously).
Recent warming in Canada correlates to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The following figure compares the Jan-June temperature graph shown previously for northern Canada with the multivariate ENSO index (from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/).
Sponsored IT training links:
Latest 350-029 dump and 1Y0-A05 practice questions delivers in depth understanding so you will pass 156-215.70 exam on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All I can do is shake my head and wonder when NOAA and NASA get their act together and give us a true representation of surface temperature. If they were a private companies they would be out of business by now.
Wow…I’m speechless. Excellent and timely analysis.
The only thing I’d like to see are some trend lines with the actual slope. I’ve learned that ‘eye-balling’ it, I’m often incorrect by .5C or more…which is significant considering the small numbers CAGW is concerned about.
I wonder what that map would look like if they used all record cold temperatures?
So it seems that the largest red spots — and therefore the highest anomalies — ONLY appear where there is actually no data. What an interesting correlation!
They continue their propaganda-campain, and we are told to be polite.
Sometimes I feel we behave like Chamberlain in 1939.
Luckily we have Monckton. He is our Churchill.
Very informative, astonishing but not surprising. Is there no recourse through the US legal system for a public funded organisation publishing such misleading information? If similar disinformation came from the pharmaceutical or cosmetics industries legal action would certainly follow.
NOAA + OBAMA, all you need know.
Why do these people insist on lying? They want your money.
After the whitewash of the CRU scandal did anyone really expect NOAA not to fudge their latest data? If no one else in authority in the climate-pseudo-science field will hold climate researchers accountable and apply rigorous and ethical scientific standards to their work, why should the researchers themselves?
Then they wonder why visitors to WUWT and other sceptical sites simply don’t have any confidence in their published ‘data’. They call this lack of confidence denial. Badly placed thermometers and non-existant ‘red dot’ data – what do they expect us to say. This is sad for science.
Couldn’t somebody reconstruct the big picture with dots only where real and comparable data are? This should give an impression about how reliable the conclusions are.
The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data.
What the!
I’ve posted this video a couple of times. But for those who’ve missed it here’s Joseph D’Aleo talking about the dropped stations:
3:08 minute video
Yeah, i also noticed the deceptive qualities of showing thousands of dots as if each one would correspond to a data point. But i think it’s a good PR technique; it did go down well with the public and the news was successfully deployed worldwide. It arrived in German news articles the same day as at the BBC so it was pumped through AP and Reuters very quickly. Very good marketing. If i were a multinational corporation, i’d ask NOAA for the details of their PR agency. They’re good.
@Peter Ward says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“So it seems that the largest red spots — and therefore the highest anomalies — ONLY appear where there is actually no data. What an interesting correlation!”
May be the same thing that was covered here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/is-the-null-default-infinite-hot/
Dr T G Watkins says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:49 pm
If similar disinformation came from the pharmaceutical or cosmetics industries legal action would certainly follow.
—–
So true! Execs aided by accountants go to jail for this kind of nonsense.
MichaelM (12:31pm) re: Linear Trends
Although I added the capability to plot linear trends on the graphs created via the map interface (at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx) I do not like the use of linear trends in non-linear data. The trend is too dependent on the choice of start point. Many times they are shown without confidence intervals, which can make them misleading.
See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/LinearTrends.htm for examples of why linear trends are often not appropriate.
What scares me is that, in the name of getting rid of pollution, so many out there go along with this stuff – nay – support this stuff, in the full knowledge that it is a lie. Yet they will stick by it, vote for those peddling it, and argue against those who “deny” it, because they want to stop pollution…
When did lies like this ever work before? Nope, not never…
My Brother is a PHD Scientist, thinks the AGW science is unsupportable, but complies exactly with my comments. I just don’t know what to do with him any more!
A regular grid overlaying a Mercator projection dosn’t make much sense to start with. Since this would imply more data points the greater the latitude. Just as well the temperature data isn’t continued to the poles.
NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever
Not here. It was 1846 according to the Met Office’s Hadley Centre.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
To the author of the post. Your analysis on Canada is missing! This is what I see…
“Spot Check – Canada
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data”
Somehow you repasted Greenland analysis twice, instead of Canada. Hope you fixed soon.
REPLY: I’ll fix. The HTML at Appinsys is a train wreck, which is what you get when you author web pages in Microsoft Word. I spent over an hour trying to fix it, having to manually replace images, so not surprising there’s a mistake -Anthony
Now I understand how they are going to pull off the “new record high for the globe” predicted by Hansen for (about now?) before the heavy frosts settle in. The more the trends point to a few decades of cooling the more hysterical the blistering earth crowd is becoming.,
I wonder if they even bothered to use any data at all. Wouldn’t it be much cheaper to just tell your marketing bunny your idea about the message you want to convey with your PR campaign and leave the rest to him and just okay one design that fits the bill?
Doing it differently would be waste of taxpayers money.
And this one’s also very funny: Go to NOAA’s original PR campaign site as linked by Alan:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html
and look for
“Polar Sea Ice and Precipitation Highlights”
When skeptics list stuff like that they’re immediately accused of cherry-picking; NOAA tells you the “Highlights” of Global Warming with a straight face.
Cooking the books, eh, NOAA? Gosh, why am I not surprised! (These folks torture numbers in ways that simply aren’t acceptable in the real world.)
Jimbo says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:14 pm
The misrepresentation appears deliberate, consistent, and fully intended.
I’d say that’s reasonable cause for action.
The opposing candidates in the upcoming elections should make it an issue.
In fact, I would like to see the House & Senate GOP fling it out there for America to see.
60% of Americans already suspect that the climate reports are being falsified.
For several months I have watched as S. America, Australia and Africa have been below normal, yet NOAA has painted the Southern Hemisphere red. China has been cooler for most of the year.
DirkH says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm
No, it’s not that they didn’t bother using data, it’s that they borrowed a page from GISS.
I’ll give a go at image editing to remove the offending +5C red dots that should be white (no data).
North Eastern Canada, and Canada as a whole has experienced the warmest winter on record. According to David Phillips Canada’s leading Climatologist. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204477-Warmest-driest-winter-on-record-in-Canada