Announcing the first ever CONUS yearly average temperature from the Climate Reference Network

UPDATE: NOAA plans to release SOTC at 1PM EST today. Look for updates soon and a special report on today’s release. The map below will automatically update when we have the new December COOP Tavg value, probably later today. I’ll have another post on the differences between the CRN and COOP in the near future. – Anthony

Pursuant to our previous story showing issues with diverging data and claims over time, NCDC has updated the Climate Reference Network Data for December 2012. I’m still waiting on the NCDC State of the Climate report to come in with their number, and I’ll update the graphic (in yellow) when it is available.

Being a state of the art system, it is well sited, and requires no adjustments and the data is well spatially distributed by design so that it is representative of the CONUS. Here’s the current plot (click to enlarge):

Each (small) number in blue represents one of the NCDC operated U.S. Climate Reference Network stations in the CONUS that we use. Here’s the data reports for December and the entire year:

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

2012 Average Monthly Reports – text files

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201201.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201202.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201203.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201204.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201205.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201206.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201207.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201208.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201209.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201210.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201211.txt

http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201212.txt

Source for all data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/

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

The December report looks like this:

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

TOTALS Totals for T_MONTHLY_MEAN (column 8) = 296.7

Totals for T_MONTHLY_AVG (column 9) = 302.4

Total Number of CRN Stations Included in this Report = 116 out of 117 CONUS stations possible (stations with missing data excluded – see below)

AVERAGING CALCULATIONS

Average of T_MONTHLY_MEAN Totals = 296.7 / 116 = 2.55775862068965 or 2.6° C Average of T_MONTHLY_AVG Totals = 302.4 / 116 = 2.60689655172414 or 2.6° C Average of T_MONTHLY_MEAN Totals in Fahrenheit = (2.55775862068965 * 1.8) + 32 = 36.6039655172414 or 36.6° F

Average of T_MONTHLY_AVG Totals in Fahrenheit = (2.60689655172414 * 1.8) + 32 = 36.6924137931034 or 36.7° F

SUMMARY National Average of Monthly Mean Temperatures = 2.6° C or 36.6° F National Average of Monthly Average Temperatures = 2.6° C or 36.7° F

EXCLUDED STATIONS The following stations reported no data (-9999.0) for either T_MONTHLY_MEAN or T_MONTHLY_AVG and were not used:

CRNM0101-PA_Avondale_2_N.txt

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

From the NCDC provided FTP data files we can calculate a yearly CONUS Tavg, which has never been done before by NCDC to my knowledge. Odd that is falls to somebody outside of the organization don’t you think?

Climate Reference Network Data for 2012

Month Tavg
1 36.8
2 38.1
3 50.6
4 54.8
5 63.3
6 70.8
7 75.6
8 72.9
9 65.6
10 53.9
11 43.9
12 36.7
Sum 663
/12 55.25

Therefore, from this data, the Average Annual Temperature for the Contiguous United States for 2012 is 55.25°F

Note also the value from the CRN from July 2012, 75.6°F far lower than what NCDC reported in the SOTC of 77.6°F and later in the database of 76.93°F as discussed here.

Makes you wonder why NCDC never mentions their new state of the art, well sited climate monitoring network in those press releases, doesn’t it? The CRN has been fully operational since late 2008, and we never here a peep about it in SOTC. Maybe they don’t wish to report adverse results.

I look forward to seeing what NCDC comes up with for the Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) in their “preliminary” State of the Climate Report for Dec 2012 and the year, and what the final number will be in 1-2 months when all the data from the COOP network comes in.

I’ll have more on this in the near future. I’ll be offline for the rest of the day traveling.

UPDATE: 10:30PM PST, Climatebeagle and others have been puzzled over the 117 stations used, and can’t reconcile with the larger list. Here’s the logic:

Some stations, such as the Oak Ridge, TN and Sterling, VA were removed due to them not reporting regularly or at all (they are test sites). The one CRN station in Egbert, Ontario Canada is not part of the CONUS, and is removed also. None of the stations in Alaska are used as they are also not part of the CONUS.

Here is the list: conus_stations_master_list_1-8-13 (PDF)

UPDATE2: 9:30AM PST, 1/8 Reader Lance Wallace noted a mistake, which has to do with versioning control on our end. One CRN station in Egbert Ontario was inadvertently included in the monthly code, where it was not in the daily code we run. We’ll rerun it all and update. I’m thankful for the many eyes of WUWT readers – Anthony

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
145 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 7, 2013 10:45 am

Nitpick, my apologies:

“NCDC has updated the Climate Reference Network Data for December 2012. I’m still waiting on the NCDC State of the Climate report to come in with their number, and I’ll update the graphc when it is available…”

tgmccoy
January 7, 2013 10:48 am

Hmm another “Hoist with their owne Petard” moment…

January 7, 2013 10:48 am

You need to start putting in invoices to the US Government for all the work that they can’t be bothered to do for themselves.

DirkH
January 7, 2013 10:49 am

Global Warming Has Left The Building!

jonny old boy
January 7, 2013 10:52 am

Nice Work….. So it looks like a SECOND state high temperature record being broken this century may be less likely…. 😉 Poor old South Dakota !

Skiphil
January 7, 2013 10:52 am

So impressive, Anthony, congratulations!! Looking forward to seeing the implications of this…. So the CRN is proving inconvenient to someone’s Cause….

daved46
January 7, 2013 10:56 am

Dont you need to multiply each monthly average by the number of days in that month, add all the months up and then divide by 365 or 366 to get an unbiased average?
REPLY: already handled in code, we took each stations Monthly Tavg (which NCDC caclulates from daily data) and calculated a CONUS monthly Tavg. All the data is there in case anyone wants to replicate it independently. – Anthony

leon0112
January 7, 2013 10:57 am

Anthony – Did Al Gore share some of his Big Oil money with you?

Lance Wallace
January 7, 2013 11:00 am

For those interested in the CRN network, there is a recent article summarizing the first 10 years of operation
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00170

January 7, 2013 11:07 am

Oh dear. This isn’t looking good. Not good at all.
Methinks someone has a lot of explaining to do.
And that should be interesting. Time to order in more popcorn!

climatebeagle
January 7, 2013 11:08 am

I’ve been simple averaging the USCRN hourly data and 2012 consistently comes out as the hottest US year regardless of the stations. E.g. hottest since 2003 when only looking at stations with a complete record since 2003, hottest since 2008 when only looking at stations with a complete record since 2008 etc.
I’m not actually a great believer in averaging temps, but should a spatial weighted average be used, rather than a simple one? E.g. a couple of areas have two nearby stations rather than just one.

mpainter
January 7, 2013 11:12 am

This will help keep the B*st*rds honest…

January 7, 2013 11:13 am

Not sure is if that’s how you calculate average adding the monthly values and divide by 12. If I go for the weighted average, ie including the month duration in days, I get 55.305 degrees F.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/conustemp2012.xls
Andre

climatebeagle
January 7, 2013 11:17 am

On the hourly numbers I calculated an USCRN 2012 yearly average of 12.1°C or 53.7°F, but I think my list of USCRN stations is different since I have 124. Probably at least because I’m using all the USCRN stations, thus not the same as CONUS.
However, is there a listing of WBANNO numbers for the USCRN stations? I haven’t found a simple list online, thus generated one manually and may have made mistakes.

eco-geek
January 7, 2013 11:26 am

OK am I going stupid or have I missed something? Is Antony really saying that one set of records is about 21 degrees F lower than the other(s)? I must be wrong I know as somebody must have noticed.
OK I’ll get on this link when the crack wears off and find my mistake.

milodonharlani
January 7, 2013 11:31 am

A much needed corrective to NASA & NOAA’s cooked books. Appears close to one station per 26,666 sq. miles (with a few gaps), so, as you note, automatically adjusted for elevation, urban, rural & all other parameters.

troe
January 7, 2013 11:33 am

Contacted my Congressman and requested a GAO audit of the NOAA/NCDC temp reporting practices. Hansen, Anthony… touch em up.

Paul Marko
January 7, 2013 11:34 am

December’s sun was really quiet. SSN ~ 40; 10.7 ~ 108; Ap ~ 3. Dalton or Maunder?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

John F. Hultquist
January 7, 2013 12:07 pm

eco,
The higher number you see is for July, not the year.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 7, 2013 12:08 pm

A man with a watch knows what time it is.
A man with two watches is never sure….
So at a minimum this says that “station selection” has a 2 F variation in it. So much for the assertion that “station dropout” doesn’t matter…
That the NCDC/SOTC data / report is 2 F warmer and the CRN stations are supposed to be ‘the best’ strongly implies that the NCDC/SOTC data are skewed high by 2 F. As that is more than the “Global Warming” they claim to have detected, that ought to mean we are colder now rather than warmer.
As I’m experiencing a colder winter than in the ’90s that accords with my ‘reality check’.
Looks to me like it’s pretty clear that “Global Warming” is an instrument error artifact.

Liberal Skeptic
January 7, 2013 12:11 pm

Someone, Somewhere, has massively cocked SOMETHING up if there is difference as large as that between this temperature record for 2012 and the old record for 2012. (I make it about 10 degrees centigrade??)
A deeper investigation has to be done.

Liberal Skeptic
January 7, 2013 12:15 pm

^ Actually not 10C, got confused by the previous story.
Still a major difference, enough to put global warming scare stories into doubt, at least in the united states. And the temperature record for the rest of the world can’t be of any better quality either.

MangoChutney
January 7, 2013 12:21 pm

CONUS or CON US?

Berényi Péter
January 7, 2013 12:25 pm

using the same dataset we get annual average contiguous US temperatures for the last 5 years
2008 52.57°F
2009 52.48°F
2010 52.98°F
2011 53.21°F
2012 55.25°F
Trend is +61°F/century, truly worse than we thought
/sarc off

Lance Wallace
January 7, 2013 12:34 pm

Anthony and Climate Beagle–
Using the CRN monthly dataset, I get rather different numbers for 2008-2011 (about 52 F) compared to Anthony’s number of 55 for 2012. I haven’t downloaded the data for 2012 yet.
Here are the values for 2008-2011. These are obtained by averaging across all months for a year rather than averaging across each month and then dividing by 12 the way Anthony did, although I would think this would not make much difference.
year sites months mean (F) Std. Err. (F)
2008 112 1382 51.9 0.50
2009 114 1449 51.7 0.49
2010 116 1467 52.0 0.49
2011 116 1493 51.9 0.50
Incredible stability for those four years!

1 2 3 6