Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?

Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Last month was the hottest June since record keeping began in 1880, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Monday. It marked the third month in a row that global temperature reached a record high. According to the NOAA data, April and May were also global record-breakers. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month at 16.22 degrees Celsius, or 0.72 degree Celsius above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees Celsius,’ the NOAA said in its monthly climate report. “This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius.”.

Nine of the ten hottest Junes on record have all occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years, the U.S. agency said.

201406[1]

However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data, with a major cooling of the past and allowance for UHI contamination in recent decades. The all time record highs and days over 90F tell us we have been in a cyclical pattern with 1930s as the warmest decade.

screenhunter_1225-jul-22-08-14[1]

NOAA and NASA (which uses data gathered by NOAA climate center in Asheville) has been commissioned to participate in special climate assessments to support the idealogical and political agenda of the government. From Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

The National Climate Data Center and NASA climate group also control the data that is used to verify these models which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the very least, their decisions and adjustments may be because they really believe in their models and work to find the warming they show – a form of confirmation bias.

Please note: This is not an indictment of all of NOAA where NWS forecasters do a yeoman’s job providing forecasts and warnings for public safety.

NCEP gathers real time data that is used to run the models. When we take the initial analyses that go into the models and compute monthly anomalies, we get very small departures from normal for the 1981 to 2010 base period on a monthly or year to date basis.

ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_062014[1]

Screen_shot_2014-07-21_at_11.38.43_PM[1]

ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd_%281%29[1]

cfsr_t2m_2005[1]

The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data). It needs no adjustments that NOAA claims are required for station and ocean data.

Screen_shot_2014-07-16_at_10.47.07_AM[1]

This government manipulation of data may be simply a follow up to the successful manipulation of other government data that has largely escaped heavy public scrutiny.

Over the last 12 months, the CPI has increased 2.1%. Real inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. The BLS U6 measure, the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force is 12.1%.

CPI is used to adjust social security benefits and military pay and to a large degree as one factor in industry wages. if you are feeling you are falling behind, it is because the real costs of goods and services have risen more than any income or benefits you receive. That is why the GDP actually fell early this year – between the high cost of energy and food, the discretionary income for spending retail and in restaurants fell.

Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.

The sad news is if NOAA keeps providing the government with tainted data to justify its EPA assault on our country’s only reliable energy sources, inflation will skyrocket and unemployment will follow.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

194 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
njsnowfan
July 28, 2014 3:08 am

“Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?”
NO!!

July 28, 2014 3:17 am

But UHI is real and needs to be accounted for.
There has been warming for half a century so warmer temperatures now are not unexpected.
So, what evidence do you have that the adjustments are politically motivated and not reasonable?
And are you an Australian psychologist based in Bristol?

Editor
July 28, 2014 3:18 am

When the margin of error is taken account of, statistically May was only one of an eight-way tie.
Furthermore, the NCDC global map shows just how little of the Earth’s surface is being measured.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/noaas-hottest-month-claims-are-unscientific/
Such claims are simply unscientific and politically motivated.

Ack
July 28, 2014 3:29 am

Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.
Line 2 is from a previous paragraph.

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2014 3:31 am

Of course we should trust them; they’re the “experts”.

RH
July 28, 2014 3:39 am

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the people working in the field offices vs. the politically pressured people working in the data centers. I would say fully one third of the day to day forecasters are skeptical of AGW claims, and a majority are at least open minded on the subject.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
July 28, 2014 3:44 am

A quick glance of the maps and the intense heat seems to linger in sparsely inhabited areas, such as Siberia, Sahara, Himalayas, Alps, Nunavut, Northern Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador, Amazon, Andes, Kalahari, Gobi, open oceans and the poles. Taking UHI and the human CO2 emission sources into consideration it’s paradoxical to say the least. How come CO2 need to travel so far before it starts warming? Or perhaps the problem is elsewhere?

July 28, 2014 3:50 am

Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
No.

July 28, 2014 3:52 am

Very poor article – there is plenty of room to be skeptical about statistical adjustments, but saying that NCEP needs no adjustments and equating it to CPI and the U6 numbers (which are by definition cooked) – is just as politically biased as it accuses NOAA figures to be.

John W. Garrett
July 28, 2014 4:00 am

What does “NCEP” stand for?

Alan Robertson
July 28, 2014 4:03 am

John W. Garrett says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:00 am
What does “NCEP” stand for?
______________
http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/

July 28, 2014 4:09 am

“Should you trust NOAA…?”

__ll No!
Yes the weather side of NOAA heroically performs daily, hourly, minute by minute weather service. I still look outside to identify my place in the weather.
However, all of NOAA dealing with climate prognostications under the Gavinator do not appear to be working for the public nor for the good of the public. They do appear to be eager shills for eco and political hacks. There must be a lot of damp shoe leather in that hierarchy.
Otherwise, some stolid honest researcher in NOAA would be blowing a whistle. What is really puzzling is why there is not a group of whistle blowers. Especially as ATF employees are far more honest and ethical than the supposedly pure scientists, scientists who are apparently content to watch years of legitimate research destroyed in the name of eco-fear and tax burdens.

July 28, 2014 4:16 am

Its been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Using a long-term natural trend to justify a political agenda might have worked if the Alarmists hadn’t hijacked the scientific process to support their catastrophism. History will not be kind to them.

ShrNfr
July 28, 2014 4:17 am

I still think they should find the SCMAS tapes from Nimbus F and process them. That would bring the sat record back to 1973 or so. SCAMS who flew on Nimbus F was a reasonably good 5 channel instrument and the precursor to the AMSU. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2jAzrIpMIUYJ:nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do%3Fid%3D1975-052A-10+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

July 28, 2014 4:25 am

Perhaps the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) should be changed to “Anthropogenic Adjusted Global Warming” (AAGW). All the warming is now from Man(n) made adjustments.

The Expulsive
July 28, 2014 4:46 am

Of course you can trust the government…ask the Cherokee

Farmer Gez
July 28, 2014 4:53 am

Just checked our nearest local BOM weather station for June averages but found that its readings are an amalgam of a site 40 kilometres to the Southeast and another site 100 kilometres to the Northeast in a completely different climate zone. Hardly worth taking the averages for June seriously.

July 28, 2014 5:16 am

I’m sure that the NOAA numbers are right but they are in Hansen units (Hansens, named after the eminent scientist who discovered a whole new way to measure temperature), not degrees C.

Matt W.
July 28, 2014 5:18 am

Should I trust the NOAA’s numbers? Maybe not, but I certainly would not trust the shadow government statistics website numbers either. John Williams’ calculations and methodology are more sketchy and secretive than the government, and seem only to exist to scare you into buying a subscription to his premium service.

yam
July 28, 2014 5:24 am

The TTFI (Things That Flower Index) says otherwise here in southern New York. Flowering is much belated this year.

ossqss
July 28, 2014 5:29 am

Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, unemployment would be well over 9%.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/nonfarm-payrolls-288000-unemployment.html

July 28, 2014 5:29 am

I presume that the temperature data gathered by these organizations qualifies as official U.S. government data. If so, is there not a federal law against altering, manipulating or tampering with government data and records in ways that cannot be scientifically or otherwise justified?
If a law (or laws) are being broken here, I guess one is entitled to be exempt from it/them when the data fudging is being done to “save the planet” and wage ware on those “evil” fossil fuels that have made our lives easier and better. Apparently, when you are a CAGW crusader, you are entitled to break the law or have others break the law as long as you are in government.
Isn’t it interesting when the nation’s laws only apply to those of us outside of government?

pochas
July 28, 2014 5:32 am

Once a scam like this gets started, it’s hard to stop. Too many dependents. Too many political debts. There just is no “Oops!”

Editor
July 28, 2014 5:32 am

I left a similar comment over at Pierre Gosselin’s NoTrickZone a couple of days ago.
Keep in mind that the NCEP CFSR.v2 is a reanalysis (the output of a computer model) and not data. There are few actual measurements of marine air temperature, so the air temperatures 2 meters above the oceans (70% of the surface) are computer-generated estimates in the NCEP CFSR.v2 reanalysis. They may be based on sea surface temperatures, but they are not actual readings of marine air temperature. And we also have to keep in mind that there are numerous other reanalyses. If all of the reanalyses disagreed with the actual global surface temperature data, then the surface temperature data might be suspect. The fact that one reanalysis disagrees with the data doesn’t tell us much of anything.
Off topic: The very preliminary monthly NINO3.4 region SSTa are below the threshold of El Nino conditions and the weekly NINO3.4 data are only +0.08 deg C for last week.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/very-very-preliminary-july-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
Cheers.

Coach Springer
July 28, 2014 5:34 am

No way is the anomaly positive for my area, but that’s what the map shows. This is propaganda – and it’s dishonest.

1 2 3 8