NCDC omits inconvenient data in public climate releases?

The NCDC Goes Ahistorical

Guest post by Ken Meyercord

On March 19th last I sent the following email to Derek Arndt, Chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the NCDC:

“I noticed that on the National Climatic Data Center website the National Overview report for February gives the average temperature for the contiguous United States and compares this to the 20th century average, but it doesn’t give the historical ranking of February 2013 (which, as you know, was the 49th warmest).

Looking over the reports for the last year, I found only two times that such a ranking was not given, and in both instances it was a case of the data not supporting the global warming enthusiasts: June 2012, which was the 9th warmest – not that damning except that it is bracketed between rankings of 1, 3, 2, and 1; and October 2012, which ranked 75th warmest. All three omissions appear to me to be signs of politics intruding into the scientific sphere, something, I hope, you are as concerned about as am I, especially with regard to such an important issue. I trust you have a more reassuring explanation for the omission. “

I have been waiting with bated breath to see how the NCDC would handle their report on March (and to receive Mr. Arndt’s explanation!), suspecting it was even cooler historically than February.

Today the NCDC published their report (at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2013/03 ). Sure enough, March was cooler, and once again the NCDC failed to give the historical ranking (which was 77th warmest), noting only that it was “the coolest March since 2002″.

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

I checked (see below for the last 13 months) some other recent reports to see if Mr. Meyercord’s assertions hold up, these are the first bullet points for the month of each State of the Climate report.

Meyercord’s claim doesn’t always hold up about warmer/colder months,  but it does suggest an inconsistent or sloppy reporting process on the part of NCDC. With something so important, you’d think they would have a template for such reports where the same basic data is reported each time to allow for comparisons with previous months.

NCDC would do well to standardize their reporting practices for State of the Climate reports since they are used by the media and by policy makers

- Anthony

Climate Highlights — January

  • The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during January was 32.0°F, 1.6°F above the 20th century average, tying with 1958 as the 39th warmest January on record.

Climate Highlights — December

  • The average contiguous U.S. temperature for December was 36.4°F, 3.4°F above the 20th century long-term average, and the 10th warmest December on record.

Climate Highlights — November

  • The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during November was 44.1°F, 2.1°F above the 20th century average, tying 2004 as the 20th warmest November on record.

Climate Highlights — October

  • The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during October was 53.9°F, just 0.3°F below the long-term average, ending a 16-month streak of above-average temperatures for the lower 48 that began in June 2011.

Climate Highlights — September

Climate Highlights — August

Climate Highlights — July

  • The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.

Climate Highlights — June

Climate Highlights — May

Climate Highlights — April

Climate Highlights — March

  • Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. The average temperature of 51.1 degrees F was 8.6 degrees F above the 20th century average for March and 0.5 degrees F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months that have passed since the U.S. record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

Climate Highlights — February

  • During February, the contiguous United States experienced above-average temperatures with a national average temperature of 38.3 degrees F. This was 3.6 degrees F above average, making it the 17th warmest February on record.

Climate Highlights — January

  • The average contiguous U.S. temperature in January was 36.3 degrees F, 5.5 degrees F above the 1901-2000 long-term average — the fourth warmest January on record, and the warmest since 2006. Precipitation, averaged across the nation, was 1.85 inches. This was 0.37 inch below the long-term average, with variability between regions. This monthly analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.
About these ads

33 thoughts on “NCDC omits inconvenient data in public climate releases?

  1. The truth will out. Every time they hide anything that’s inconvenient, they give themselves away. We’re onto them! The public is waking up, too.

  2. It does seem strange that the warm extremes are reported in so much more detail than the cooler weather. Mind you I am not surprised.This kind of behavior is happening all to often and we the hoy peloy the great unwashed have to sit here and take because the MSM is now in the pocket of the other side. I feel mad as heck but I have to take it.

  3. Since we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, being warmer than the 20th century average is to be expected, not scary. It is only significant if for some reason, we determined that the temperature in the continental US was flat for the last several hundred years.

  4. FWIW, this seems to have been overlooked by most blogs.

    United States, China reach critical deal on climate change

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/14/united-stata-china-reach-critical-deal-on-climate-change/

    WASHINGTON – The world’s two biggest polluters have signed what could be a groundbreaking agreement and “call to action” on the fight against escalating climate change.

    The United States and China announced Sunday they would accelerate action to reduce greenhouse gases by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy.

    But while the listed actions sound relatively mundane, the words that accompanied the announcement were not. In a joint and quite powerful statement on the dangers of climate change, the two sides said they “consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.”

    The statement recognizes an “urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… is more critical than ever.” It goes on to say, “Such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.”

  5. Mohib says:
    April 15, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    FWIW, this seems to have been overlooked by most blogs.

    United States, China reach critical deal on climate change

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/14/united-stata-china-reach-critical-deal-on-climate-change/

    WASHINGTON – The world’s two biggest polluters have signed what could be a groundbreaking agreement and “call to action” on the fight against escalating climate change.

    The United States and China announced Sunday they would accelerate action to reduce greenhouse gases by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy.

    But while the listed actions sound relatively mundane, the words that accompanied the announcement were not. In a joint and quite powerful statement on the dangers of climate change, the two sides said they “consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.”

    The statement recognizes an “urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… is more critical than ever.” It goes on to say, “Such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.”

    Mohib, I have highlighted in bold what the Chinese will get out of this agreement. They will not be slowing down their building of coal fired power generation – but they have found that the US is silly enough to give away their intellectual property

  6. Who is footing the bill?. We are..
    So we borrow Billions from China so we hand it right back..
    In their culture I think they call that protection money..
    Shame our corrupt politicians mistake this for progress..

  7. arthur4563 says:
    April 15, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    How about publishing alternative temperature data using the “unbiased monitoring sites” identified by Watts et al?

    ————————————————–

    I think this is an excellent idea.

    Another idea would be to publish a global temperature. Land temperature from BEST, but with a correction for UHI/siting according to Watts or McKitrick and sea surface data from the Japanese data set.

  8. Ian W;
    Mohib, I have highlighted in bold what the Chinese will get out of this agreement.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sad isn’t it? They’ve arrived at an agreement by which the world will use more (for example) wind power. China gets the technology for free. They build windmills and sell them to the US. They use the money they make to buy coal and oil. Wind mills take a lot of energy to manufacture and by using cheap coal and oil, China will make more money on what the sell to the US….

    Seriously, I don’t see a lot coming out of this agreement. Sounds like mostly hot air, no real commits on both sides. The paragraph further down about them “imposing” their agreement on the rest of the world is equally unworkable. The same countries that dragged their feet and did nothing about Kyoto will figure out how to drag their feet again and avoid doing much of anything. What are China and the US going to do? Bomb them if they don’t submit?

  9. I have noticed in my area (Kansas City generally) that the NWS seems to avoid or delay reporting summary data on months that are below average, or to report rankings that are low on the totem pole. They are very quick to report the warmest ever, or the top 10 warmest. Last summer in the hot, dry summer, they put out a report about just how hot and dry it was (hottest driest evah). I sent an e-mail to enquire, was told I was wrong (or misunderstood) and a week later the report was corrected without any fanfare. Turns out the summer was the 13th warmest. Not a big announcement. Definitely a systemic bias.

  10. As the mountain of evidence piles against the
    alarmists, I feel trapped. The problem with the
    inevitable fall of fools is the wreckage that is
    left. We have spent a generation preparing for
    an illusion. My country is broke, and every legal
    structure is designed to impede rather than
    enhance our adaptability.

    If the current cooling trend follows in its
    downward slope, we will be right, and they
    will be wrong. But we will all be screwed, and
    the new left will state the truth, that profiteering
    and lying screwed us.

    Then they will say that the enemy is wealth,
    and that our only protection is government and
    a commitment against production in excess of
    need.

    In the end, Robespierre met his earned fate. But
    the French were not saved thereby. We will be
    proven right. I doubt we will win.

  11. Its not like the NCDC maintains all the global surface temperatures or anything.

    If they are so reluctant to just say temperatures were below average in whatever month, what does that say about their objective ability to be the “keeper of the records”.

    It says that there needs to be some changes or, at minimum, the threat of changes to keep them in line. I wish there was a way to bring in some real statiscians with objective motives to take over instead but that would require significant political/public opinion changes as well.

  12. March was DAMN cold here in eastern TN. I am only 40, but it was the coldest in my living memory. My gas bill agrees…

  13. And, inadvertently, you’ve stumbled into something I’ve seen before – the continually changing average.

    As an example, look at the first few entries:

    January was 32.0°F, 1.6°F above the 20th century average (makes the avg 30.4)

    December was 36.4°F, 3.4°F above the 20th century long-term average (makes the avg 33.0)

    November was 44.1°F, 2.1°F above the 20th century average (makes the avg 42.0)

    October was 53.9°F, just 0.3°F below the long-term average (makes the avg 54.2)

    Well, you get the point. Either the average changes monthly, or they’re running 12 separate “20th century long term averages” – one for each month.

  14. Whatever happened to the paper by Watts, McIntyre, and others, published online the weekend of the BEST announcement? The BEST papers have been in print for a few months now, but nothing from Watts et al…. Where is this work in the process?

  15. Ignoring observations, does not change observations. Fudging data, does not change the data, does not change reality. The 20th century warming phase appears to have peaked. The observations appear to point to the start of global cooling.

    It will be interesting to watch and listen to the creative explanations to explain global cooling. What will the extreme AGW paradigm pushers’ policy response be to global cooling? If AGW is no longer a problem how can CO2 be an evil gas that the EPA must regulate? CO2 appears to be a biosphere friendly gas.

    Record sea ice in the Antarctic for the full year. (i.e. There appears to be no warm period, to melt the Antarctic ice sheets, to cause an increase in Antarctic sea ice. The latest extreme AGW paradigm theory to explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice was fresh water from a warming Antarctic which is absurd as the ice sheet slightly cooled during this warming period which matches the past patterns of cycling warming followed by cooling.)

    In the past when the solar magnetic cycle abruptly slowed down, the planet cooled.
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.

    This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.

    If you are interested in watching the anomalous solar cycle 24 unfold real time, this site provides an interesting summary.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

  16. William Astley says:
    It will be interesting to watch and listen to the creative explanations to explain global cooling.

    What cooling?
    There is no cooling (especially in the ocean, where 90+% of the heat goes).

    Whatever led you to think the surface could not have a near-zero trend for 10-15 years?

  17. They certainly deserve their title “Warmists”. The National Climatic Data Centre ‘Climate Highlight’ reports have used every opportunity to imply every month is the “warmest”. In fact anyone reading it may think we are burning in the fires of hell the way it implies every month is hotter than the last.

  18. Of course these omission are just ‘lucky chance ‘ has is their promotion of anything that can be used to sell ‘the cause’ . Amazing how ‘lucky ‘ the warmest are , look out the tables of Vegas if climate ‘scientists’ come to town.

  19. Stan W.:

    Your post at April 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm asks a silly question. It says

    William Astley says:

    It will be interesting to watch and listen to the creative explanations to explain global cooling.

    What cooling?
    There is no cooling (especially in the ocean, where 90+% of the heat goes).

    Whatever led you to think the surface could not have a near-zero trend for 10-15 years?

    I am at a loss as to understand how you think there could be near-zero trend for the most recent period of at least 16 years if the AGW hypothesis is correct.

    We were told by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the recent halt to global warming is not possible.

    This is stated in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says there

    The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

    In other words,
    The IPCC expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system and as a result of the “slow response of the oceans” which you mention.

    This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

    I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

    Richard

  20. “The United States and China announced Sunday they would accelerate action to reduce greenhouse gases by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy.”

    I believe it was ignored by most blogs because it is a ‘fluff’ agreement with no substance and has no significance at all. Anytime countries want to look like they are doing something when they don’t really want to they announce agreements like this that sound good but don’t actually commit either to do anything. It actually says they are going to ‘advance cooperation’, nothing else, whatever ‘advancing cooperation’ means. I’d like to know exactly what you do to ‘advance cooperation on conservation’.

  21. In reply to:
    Stan W. says:
    April 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    William Astley says:
    It will be interesting to watch and listen to the creative explanations to explain global cooling.
    What cooling?
    There is no cooling (especially in the ocean, where 90+% of the heat goes).
    Whatever led you to think the surface could not have a near-zero trend for 10-15 years?

    William:
    Hi Stan,
    There is in the paleoclimatic record a pattern of warming and cooling. The specific regions that warmed in the past in the paleoclimatic record are the same as specific regions that warmed in the 20th century. This is interesting as the regions that warmed in the 20th century – higher latitude regions – does not agree with the extreme AGW theory. The AGW theory predicted the most warming would occur in the tropics and that there would be tropical troposphere hot spot located at about 10 km above the surface of the planet. The tropics did not warm in the 20th century and there was no observed hot spot at roughly 10km above the surface in the tropics. Pattern recognition, is one of the methods that can be used to determine which mechanism caused what is observed.

    There is the start of observed cooling in higher latitude regions of both hemispheres. Based on the mechanisms – the sun is changing from the most active series of magnetic cycles in 8000 years to a Maunder minimum – the cooling will be as rapid as the 8200 BP present cooling event and will last for a minimum of 50 to 150 years.

    This graph, Greenland ice sheet temperature, last 11,000 years (roughly determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper shows nine (9) Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles of warming and cooling. The D-O warming and cooling cycles have a periodicity of 1450 year plus or minus 500 years. The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23, D-O cycles through the current interglacial which is called the Holocene and into the last glacial period the Wisconsin Glacial period. (The last glacial period is called the Wisconsin glacial period as a 2 mile thick ice sheet covered Canada and the Northern US states down to Wisconsin at it greatest extent.)

    Similar to crime scene investigation, observational clues can be analyzed determine what caused the 20th century warming. The warming that we observed in the 20th century has occurred before. The warming period ends when the sun goes into a deep Maunder minimum. The planet then cools for a period of 50 to 150 years. The warming is caused by an increase in the solar magnetic cycle that changes the amount of planetary cloud (Low level clouds reflect sunlight off into space. Less low level planetary clouds, planet warms. More low level clouds planet warms. All else being equal, unchanged.) via the following two mechanisms (there is a third mechanism):
    1) Forcing change: Solar Heliosphere (Mechanism, GCR ion mediated cloud formation): The solar wind carries pieces of the magnetic flux from the sun off into space to form the solar heliosphere which extends out past the orbit of Pluto when the sun is very active. The pieces of magnetic flux deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The GCR are mostly high speed protons. GCR strike that atmosphere and create cloud forming ions. All else being equal (i.e. No other changes in ions in the atmosphere), less GCR, less clouds, less radiation reflected off into space and the planet warms. GCR can be high and the cloud forming ions can be removed by electroscavenging.
    2) Forcing Change: Solar Wind bursts (Mechanism: ‘Electroscavenging’): Planetary cloud cover is also changed by solar wind bursts which create a space charge in the ionosphere. The space charge differential removes ions by a process that called ‘electroscavening’. When the solar magnetic cycle is very active there is also an increase in solar wind bursts.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    This graph, Greenland ice sheet temperature, last 11,000 years (roughly determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper shows nine (9) Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles of warming and cooling. The D-O warming and cooling cycles have a periodicity of 1450 year plus or minus 500 years.

    The warming that we observed in the 20th century has occurred before.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    The following is a link to the late Gerald Bond’s paper “Persistent Solar influence on the North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene”. Bond published this paper in 2001.

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    Excerpt from the above linked paper:
    “A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic. Indeed, previous studies have tied increases in the C14 in tree rings, and hence reduced solar irradiance (William: Total solar irradiance, TSI does not change. The sun does not get hot or colder. The solar magnetic cycle goes into a Maunder minimum and the planet cools due to an increase in planetary clouds), to Holocene glacial advances in Scandinavia, expansions of the Holocene Polar Atmosphere circulation in Greenland; and abrupt cooling in the Netherlands about 2700 years ago…Well dated, high resolution measurements of O18 in stalagmite from Oman document five periods of reduced rainfall centered at times of strong solar minima at 6300, 7400, 8300, 9000, and 9500 years ago.”

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.

    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance. (William: At the time Gerald Bond wrote this paper, 2001, it was not known how changes to the solar magnetic cycle caused the planet to warm and cool. The mechanism is not an increase in the total solar irradiance (TSI), the sun does not get warmer or colder. The planetary temperature changes is caused by mechanisms that decrease and then increase the amount of planetary cloud cover.)

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
    Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
    Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.

  22. “How about publishing alternative temperature data using the “unbiased monitoring sites” identified by Watts et al?”

    Though the Watts paper is dear, please instead encourage them to continue with exactly the same stations. By narrowing themselves to a biased set of “bad” stations, they may have created a false ramp. But there are few new airports expected in the US, and if they’ve already done a good job confirming their biases, then that error mechanism is tapped out.

    1. If they keep using the same stations, the step discontinuity will grow increasingly obvious.
    2. If they try to hide behind smoothing, the slope will still trend down.
    3. If you make them chage the stations, it gives another opportunity to splice old and new. You know how they’ll make choices there, right?

    The most ironic moment will be when they claim the decreased air traffic is causing the flat trend, and as soon as the economy picks up the “real trend” will return. Has anyone done an air traffic to surface station temp correlation? Nationally both data sets are available, and air traffic has two big recent changes: October 2001 and March 2008.

  23. William Astley (April 15, 2013 at 8:57 pm): Great post and links. I would only add that the same thermal inertia that we get lectures about at SkepSci applied to CO2 is applicable to the solar slump (lower TSI, lower solar UV, etc). Thus the effects of the recent (2008) solar slump are mostly in our future.

  24. eric1skeptic says…..

    I would only add that the same thermal inertia that we get lectures about at SkepSci applied to CO2 is applicable to the solar slump (lower TSI, lower solar UV, etc). Thus the effects of the recent (2008) solar slump are mostly in our future.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are mixing whales and eagles.

    CO2 is a gas that absorbs and re-emits in the infrared. The Sun has changes in the composition of the total solar irradiance. link

    Any effect of CO2 is pretty much limited to the atmosphere while the changes in sunlight effects both the atmosphere and the ocean.

    link

    link

  25. Stan W. says: @ April 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    What cooling?
    There is no cooling (especially in the ocean, where 90+% of the heat goes).

    Whatever led you to think the surface could not have a near-zero trend for 10-15 years?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    What lead us to think a near-zero trend for 10-15 years is significant?

    The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled ‘The State Of The Climate’ and can be read at

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    It says

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    So, the climate models show “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”.
    But, the climate models RULE OUT “(at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”.
    H/T to richardscourtney who said that @ February 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    Why do we think we are looking at cooling ahead?
    It is pretty obvious the climate has changed in the last decade or so as the jet stream has gone from zonal to meridional.

    There are the solar cycles: the 80 to 90 year Wolf-Gleissberg cycle .(Krivsky 1995, Hoyt and Schatten 1997), a 180 to 200 year cycle (Burroughs 1992) and Stuiver Braziunas (1992) reported oscillations with a period of 416 year. link

    There are lunar tide cycles of 1800 years, 179 years, 60 years… that slosh around the oceans.

    Worse there are Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change 16C and 8, 10C in dramatically short times and no one really knows WHY.

    We are at the half precession point and solar insolation is declining (See NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator: link )

    The real climate question is not global warming but if we are headed into glaciation or not, for a synopsis see: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305#comment-7191

    or the following WUWT threads:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/

  26. Antarctica has the Ozone Hole [even though greatly reduced Freon] which has not closed. Without the Ozone as a protective heat blanket, the outgoing infrared energy moves directly to space.

    Energy proxy 10.7cm Flux [average values below]:
    1) Flux 70 to 100 -> cooling
    2) Flux 100 to 120 -> static
    3) Flux 120 up -> warming

    Flux at 70 to 80 allows cooling at about -0.1C/2.5 years. This is the normal cooling that occurs during a Sunspot minimum. Flux at 120 up produces warming at +0.1C/2.5 years OR MORE.

    We are seeing the Antarctica ice sheets increase since it is the most sensitive due to the Ozone Hole.

    In the Northern/Southern Pacific [easiest to see -> http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif ]
    One can watch the heat leave the ocean. The current goes from Equator at South America west to Indonesia. It splits and goes North/South to upper/lower central Pacific. The currents then flow back to the Equator at South America via the West Coast of North America and the West Coast of South America.

    The upper/lower central Pacific was at +5C. Now it is down to +2C. Note: There is no excess heat in Indonesia; therefore, one can watch the source of the Pacific heat cool.

    By the way, these currents are driven by the Trade Winds which are cause by the SUN!!

  27. @Mohib –
    Overwhelming scientific consensus regqarding climate change: 31,000+ signers of the Oregon Petition vs. about 70 fanatics in the IPCC and elsewhere pushing the AGW lie. That ain’t exactly the 97 percent majority claimed by the Alarmist-in-Chief. It’s more like 0.22 percent for, 99.78 percent against the AGW hypothesis. Seems to me that latter number is a better measure of where the scientific (as opposed to the leftist) consensus regarding climate change is.

Comments are closed.