Dear NOAA and Seth, which 1930's were you comparing to when you say July 2012 is the record warmest?

The press release is out, and the usual serial bloviators are rushing to trumpet the news. July 2012 was the hottest ever on record! “Yikes! We’re gonna roast! Global Warming!” they wail on Twitter and blogs. The driver of this is AP’s Seth Borenstein, who never met a hot story he didn’t like.  Here’s a quote from that story Ouch July in US was hottest ever in history books:

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees. That breaks the old record from July 1936 by 0.2 degree, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Records go back to 1895.

Three of the nation’s five hottest months on record have been recent Julys: This year, 2011 and 2006. Julys in 1936 and 1934 round out the top five.

Of course the first thing I do when I see these sorts of things is go look at the data. It tells a far more interesting and credible story. Here’s some graphs NCDC and Seth won’t ever put in a press release or AP story:

From NCDC’s Climate at a glance page:

Now let’s compare to July 1936:

A few things stand out right away.

1. Due to regional weather pattern variability, one state in 1936 had below normal temperatures, Texas. Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012.

2. Many states had warmer temperatures in 1936 than 2012.  Here’s a table, all numbers in degrees Fahrenheit:

State 1936 2012
Montana 74.7 71.4
N. Dakota 79.7 73.8
S. Dakota 83.8 78.8
Minnesota 76.2 74.4
Wisconsin 74.8 74.7
Nebraska 83.1 80.0
Iowa 82.7 79.4
Kansas 85.1 84.3
Oklahoma 85.8 85.5
Missouri 84.9 83.7
Illinois 83.1 81.7
Indiana 80.9 80.2
Mississippi 82.0 81.8
California 76.3 75.0

Now compare that to the same map of 1934, and we also see many warmer states than in 2012.

What’s interesting is that that if AGW had overcome natural variability, and many claim this, we wouldn’t see any statewide temperatures in 2012 lower than in 1936 or 1934.

And with all the adjustments that have been going on, which 1930’s are we really talking about? The real one or the adjusted one? NASA GISS uses NCDC adjusted data, which according to this graph from Steve Goddard, suggests there’s been a whole lot of adjusting going on.

The graph below shows the almost two degree US upwards adjustment trend being applied by USHCN between the raw thermometer data and the published monthly data.

The adjustments they are making are greater than the claimed trend, meaning that all man made US warming is occurring inside ORNL and GISS computers.

Speaking of adjustments, I recalled the GISS Y2K debacle in 2007 where McIntyre discovered a mistake in GISTEMP. I’ve recovered the graphs from Hansen’s 1999 press release. This was originally part of “Lights Out Upstairs”a guest post by Steve McIntyre on my old original blog. Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in 1999 than it is now. Much of this can be attributed to NCDC’s USHCNv2 adjustments.

=============================================================

Steve McIntyre wrote then:

In the NASA press release in 1999 , Hansen was very strongly for 1934. He said then:

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability.Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.

This was illustrated with the following depiction of US temperature history, showing that 1934 was almost 0.6 deg C warmer than 1998.

From a Hansen 1999 News Release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

However within only two years, this relationship had changed dramatically. In Hansen et al 2001 (referred to in the Lights On letter), 1934 and 1998 were in a virtual dead heat with 1934 in a slight lead. Hansen et al 2001 said

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6)… the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree.

From Hansen et al 2001 Plate 2. Note the change in relationship between 1934 and 1998.

Between 2001 and 2007, for some reason, as noted above, the ranks changed slightly with 1998 creeping into a slight lead.

The main reason for the changes were the incorporation of an additional layer of USHCN adjustments by Karl et al overlaying the time-of-observation adjustments already incorporated into Hansen et al 1999. Indeed, the validity and statistical justification of these USHCN adjustments is an important outstanding issue.

============================================================

I’ve prepared a before and after graph using the CONUS values from GISS in 1999 and in 2011 (today).

GISS writes now of the bottom figure:

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States

Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth’s surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]

Also available as PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.

So clearly, the two graphs are linked, and 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the “warmest year”. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C.

And they wonder why we don’t trust the surface temperature data.

In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. As Steve McIntyre often says: “You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys”.

So the real question is: which 1934 and 1936 is NCDC and Seth Borenstein comparing to? It looks to me like we might not be comparing real temperatures to real temperatures, but rather adjusted ones to highly adjusted ones.

Finally, remember this statement from the AP July 2012 “hottest ever” story:

The average temperature last month was 77.6 degrees.

I have a way to apply a sanity check to this. but I’ll need some crowd-sourcing help. Stay tuned.

==========================================

UPDATE: Dr. Roy Spencer makes an interesting plot, which I’ve annotated to show a color key and years 1934, 1936, and 2012.

He writes in: July 2012 Hottest Ever in the U.S.? Hmmm….I Doubt It

Using NCDC’s own data (USHCN, Version 2), and computing area averages for the last 100 years of Julys over the 48 contiguous states, here’s what I get for the daily High temps, Low temps, and daily Averages (click for large version):

As far as daily HIGH temperatures go, 1936 was the clear winner. But because daily LOW temperatures have risen so much, the daily AVERAGE July temperature in 2012 barely edged out 1936.

So, all things considered (including unresolved issues about urban heat island effects and other large corrections made to the USHCN data), I would say July was unusually warm. But the long-term integrity of the USHCN dataset depends upon so many uncertain factors, I would say it’s a stretch to to call July 2012 a “record”.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GlynnMhor
August 8, 2012 2:09 pm

If US figures are so alarmingly distorted, and the US records are reputedly among the best kept in the world, how much worse is it going to be for other worldwide data?
At least sea surface temperatures should be affected only by the shift from ‘bucket measure’ to ‘engine intake measure’, but has that even been examined to see if it’s been handled properly in the major temperature datasets?

August 8, 2012 2:21 pm

Mr. Watts, if I was a fudging climate scientisto crook, I would sure hate to have you on my tail.
REPLY: I don’t know that they are crooks, but I do think they are victims of a large confirmation bias. They expect to find AGW driven warming …and they do. – Anthony

Juan Slayton
August 8, 2012 2:22 pm

Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data).
Not sure what this implies. Do you mean that the new numbers are simply the result of the station changes in USHCN2 vs. USHCN1, without reference to other “adjustments”?
REPLY: I’m saying USHCNv2 has a greater magnitude of positive adjustments than USHCNv1 – Anthony

David Larsen
August 8, 2012 2:27 pm

And they are comparing digital today with analog data from as far back 1890’s. What a crock. What about heat island effect? Who calibrated those analog temperature indicators (sic)? Were the thermommymeters in wood encased housings, next to the garage, hanging in front of the busiest bar in town? Anthony, you do good work. I can not even comprehend comparing data from to different types of indicators. The temperature could vary by a half a degree or more just from the analog versus digital interpretations. We used short guys to look at the thermometers because the mercury looks higher on the one degree line.
I do remember my mother (God rest her soul) telling me how hot it was in rural Wisconsin during the 1930’s and her and her sister had to dig up sugar beets in the heat to earn extra money during the Great Depression. Tough times back then.

August 8, 2012 2:36 pm

In England this July was well below average ( down ~1C ). Temperature recorded in 1783 was exceeded only twice since, in 1983 and 2006 which was all time the record.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/July.htm

Kev-in-UK
August 8, 2012 2:42 pm

Anthony says:
>>REPLY: I don’t know that they are crooks, but I do think they are victims of a large confirmation bias. They expect to find AGW driven warming …and they do. – Anthony<<
Fair enough – but if your bank manager/car dealer/retailer/etc acted in the same way, such as giving you a quote, then later inflating the price, what would you call them? Ok, this may be purporting to be science, but it isn't – it's false, misrepresentation, and as you say biased – at best, you could call it 'crooked science'?? Personally, it turns my stomach that they can get away with it so blatantly under the banner of 'science' – it's like some kind of climatology science club with diplomatic immunity……..shameful IMO..

Owen in Ga
August 8, 2012 2:44 pm

I have always thought the adjustments were in the wrong direction. With UHI and other land use issues providing a warm bias, it seems that to adjust so you can compare “apples to apples”, the present would have to be adjusted DOWN not up to compare the past numbers to current, but even that blanket statement is wrong, because there are parts of our country that are even more wooded and wild than they were in the 1930s. Areas that are wilder now would need a slight upward adjustment to adjust for the difference (e.g. now greenfield areas that used to be the city of Detroit). Of course I haven’t looked, but my gut reaction is there would be many many more thermometers which required downward adjustment due to increased warm bias due to land use than those that would need to be warmed. I find it ludicrous that anyone would decrease the temperature of the past for ANY reason.

JohnH
August 8, 2012 2:46 pm

To be fair to the GISS folks, how do they justify their adjustments?

Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 2:47 pm

The 1930’s saw huge drifts of grasshoppers inches long from early emmergence due to the warm early Spring and subsequent feast on early maturing greenery. You could sweep a net and have three days worth of bait. Nowadays, you are lucky to find a grasshopper an inch long (I haven’t found one yet) and several sweeps of the net yields nothing. Spring has been too cold for many years now to sustain a large insect population in NE Oregon. The ripple affect will be amazing as grasshoppers are a major food source for many larger animals and larger carnivorous insects. Wonder what the praying mantis is doing these days.

The Old Crusader
August 8, 2012 2:53 pm

“1. Due to regional weather pattern variability, one state in 1936 had below normal temperatures, Texas. Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012.”
Don’t you mean Washington? Texas looks to be higher according to the graphic I’m seeing.

The Old Crusader
August 8, 2012 2:54 pm

Sorry, looking at the wrong graphic.

Jim G
August 8, 2012 3:17 pm

David Larsen
Not to mention that, like music, temperature is continuous and does not come in discrete digital accomodating quantae. Your HD (Digital, not high definition) radio will not give you the entire breadth of the music it plays. Digital temperature will necessarily be rounded off.

Anything is possible
August 8, 2012 3:29 pm

Multiplying each state’s average temperature by its land area, and then dividing by the total land area of CONUS48, I get the following average temperatures :
1936 77.1 F
2012 77.0 F
1934 76.7 F

John S
August 8, 2012 3:35 pm

1. Due to regional weather pattern variability, one state in 1936 had below normal temperatures, Texas. Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012.
Looking at the 1936 map, I see Texas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island as “Below Normal,” and Maine as “Much Below Normal.” Thats six states. Does taking any one of those six states out of the mix make July 1936 hotter than July 2012?

u.k.(us)
August 8, 2012 3:43 pm

Autumn and winter are to follow, as they tend to.
The blush of the heat will come off the rose, until next summer.
It is already happening in Chicago.

Windy
August 8, 2012 3:45 pm

“Of course the first thing I do when I see these sorts of things is go look at the data. It tells a far more interesting and credible story” – the data says exactly what they said: Three of the nation’s five hottest months on record have been recent Julys: This year, 2011 and 2006. Julys in 1936 and 1934 round out the top five.
“Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012.” – yep, take out bits of the data that don’t conform to your ideology, and the data conforms better to your ideology. You think that tells us anything about the real world?

Ted hartley
August 8, 2012 3:50 pm

I would say the the 2012 does indeed confirm AGW, the best ANY state did was normal, with the bulk of them above average.

Steve C
August 8, 2012 3:51 pm

Ah, yes, the old dancing temperature data trick. Never let us forget. But mainly, never let them forget.
Meanwhile, and speaking as an Englishman … July 2012 the record warmest? Bwahahahahahaha …

Craig
August 8, 2012 3:54 pm

Monthly Final Minus Daily Raw? Why not Monthly Final Munus Monthly Raw? What am I missing?

Alvin
August 8, 2012 3:56 pm

NBC’s Brian Williams just ran with the story using the backdrop of the Olympics and their larger audience to push the agenda.

August 8, 2012 4:04 pm

Dateline Death Valley CA. 1913.
The hottest air temperature ever recorded, in the western hemisphere.
http://www.nps.gov/deva/naturescience/weather-and-climate.htm
More Data from that astonishing Valley.
Period of Record General Climate Summary – Temperature
1961 -2012
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?ca2319
POR – Daily Temperature Averages and Extremes
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliFTrec.pl?ca2319
Source Home:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2319
Was Death Valley even included in any of the findings?
Thanks for the Great blog.
Dave

Dave
August 8, 2012 4:09 pm

OMG!! The July temperature record increased by 0.2F in 75 years (after adjustments). This surely proves CAGW theory.
ROFL. If I was a CAGW supporter I really wouldn’t be wanting this one to get too much publicity.

polistra
August 8, 2012 4:12 pm

The “since records started” also misses a whole lot of known and measured temps. Most of the NCDC starts in 1895.
I was looking at Armagh to explore Christy’s Tmin idea, and noticed something that we can’t see in NCDC. The Met Office record for Armagh has monthly max and min back to 1865, and a definite curve was visible from 1865 down to about 1920 then gradually up to the present. Nothing in that record is very dramatic, though; nowhere near the wild gyrations that most of the US experiences from the effects of continental air masses, mountain rain shadows, etc.
I still say we shouldn’t be messing with lots of sites. We should focus on a handful of mainly ocean-influenced sites with long and thorough records if we want to see anything about truly global trends.
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2012/08/christys-minimum-temp-hypothesis.html

RiHo08
August 8, 2012 4:23 pm

Adjusting/manipulating data to support a proposition or hypothesis is like heroin addition: once you start, you just can’t stop, no matter what the cost, no matter whom you hurt.

August 8, 2012 4:33 pm

I would have to guess that the mid-1930s saw ENSO in a La Niña phase. Does anybody know?

1 2 3 4