A spot check on NOAA's "hottest so far" presser

From the story:  The Australian’s overheated time warp misses half of 2010 which had a NOAA press release in it below the fold, Dr. Richard Keen weighs in and does a spot check of the data from his own NOAA station (he’s an official observer).

And if you find this map hard to look at, you aren’t alone in seeing spots.

Keen writes:

Lawrimore’s comment…

“Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north. Also, the Great Lakes aren’t freezing as early or as much. “As cold outbreaks occur, cold air goes over the Great Lakes, picks up moisture and dumps on the Northeast,” he says.”

…shows a complete lack of understanding of weather (which makes up climate). 

East coast snows are caused by lows off the coast, and if the storms move north, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC et al. find themselves in the warm sectors of the lows, and enjoy warm southerly winds and rain.

Furthermore, during the snow storms, the winds are from the northeast bringing moisture from the Atlantic (hence the name “nor’easter” for these storms); very little of the moisture comes from the Great Lakes.  One of Philadelphia’s snowiest winters was 1978-79, when the Lakes were all but frozen over.  Along the east coast, a region that averages very near freezing during the winter, the limiting factor for snow storms is not moisture, but temperature.  Most storms are rain.

Now, the spot check.

NOAA’s calculation of the global temperature is based on their analysis of departures at 2000 or so grid points.  One of those points included my weather station at Coal Creek Canyon, Colorado, a location with no UHI or other troublesome influences.  The NOAA map of June anomalies for the US, based on an unknown selection of stations, has Coal Creek sitting on the +4F contour.

The Coal Creek record is long enough to calculate 30-year normals, and June 2010 comes in at +1.0F above normal.

That’s 3 degrees less than the NOAA estimate for the same location, which is the difference between June being in the top 3 or being in the middle third.  Now, this is simply a spot check of one of NOAA’s 2000 grid points, but it leads to the question of how far off are the other grid points?

Dr. Richard Keen

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kevin G

In all fairness, I think Lawrimore was talking about two different events – snow from Nor’Easters, and lake effect. I do not think he was trying to say open water over the Great Lakes would enhance east coast snowfall. At least that was my impression.
HOWEVER.
“Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north,” is such a stupid statement. There’s no other way to put it.
Again, these storms are a frequent occurrence in the Northeast in the Winter (I grew up in NH and now live outside of DC). BUT, for Baltimore/Washington to actually get any snowfall from these storms requires…wait for it! – UNSEASONABLY COLD WEATHER! Just like we had last winter in December and February!
Now I ask you, how are these SNOW storms going to increase in frequency in the WARMING climate!?!? Sigh.

Eddie

1800 data points on the map (25×72) and using 5.1×10^8 km^2 surface area for the globe gives you 283333km^2 per station… Seems like we need a few more data points. It sure wouldn’t hurt to have some properly located stations in there either.

pat

looking at the colder than average oceans, it is clear that the hottest year claim is extremely unlikely. you simply are not going to have cold oceans and very hot land.

Enneagram

There is a red spot on my place (SH)…I wish it could be real, but, sadly, it is not. So, the above graph is another LIE.

Tom Rowan

If you are at home right now you can watch the British open live. No one told the Brits it is the hottest year on record. Every last one of them is bundled up! It looks like November over there right now. Wool caps, hands in pockets, sweaters, wind breakers and winter coats!
Go on…take a peek…you know you want to….

John S.

Lake effect snow strikes Buffalo, NY and Muskegon, MI, but usually peters out within 100 miles of the shoreline.
There is no way that Great Lakes moisture is bringing snow to the Northeast. I live in Lansing, MI, and it can be snowing a foot in Grand Rapids, but we get nothing. You can watch the NOAA weather radar and see the lake effect snow.

David L.

So it’s warmer….WHO CARES!

Mike

The gradient on the U.S. map seems large at your location. Just go a little north and there is cooling. Thus it is likely that smoothing effects could account for the discrepancy.
What is the source for the U.S. map? I did not see it on the NOAA site. The global dot map is not precise enough to draw any conclusions about your location.
BTW, on the global dot map for Jan-June 2010 it looks like Colorado cooled.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/map-blended-mntp-201001-201006.gif

M White

And the cold in Florida???????????

DJ Meredith

I’m just cherry-pickin’ here…but I counted dots (which I’m qualified to do) and found that there are more dots on the average line and below than there are above. It even looks like there’s more area under the average line than above. Somehow, it doesn’t result in a convincing argument to me that it’s warming, certainly not at a statistically significant rate if at all.

R. Gates

Alright, as a 25% skeptic (and 75% convinced that AGW is a real phenomenon), let’s suppose that the measurements (even with some errors) as correct, and that 2010 is indeed the warmest year on record, if even by a few tenths of a degree. To what would the skeptics attribute this warmth? We are still a few years away from the higher total solar irradiance that the solar max will bring in 2013, and the last El Nino, while strong, was not as strong as 1998. So where is the warmth coming from, if not from AGW caused in increases in GHG? I keep hearing some skeptics say that the world is cooling, etc., but the leveling in the growth of global temps that we HAD seen in the last few years can easily be attributed to the long and deep solar minimum, but now temps seem to be going right back up, just as GCM’s would say will happen with AGW.
Where is the warmth coming from my skeptical friends? (and I think it is a huge cop out to say the measurements are wrong). There’s just too many other global temperature measurements that validate the general upward trends to think that every independent weather observer is also wrong, such as this one from Germany:
http://www.meteo.uni-koeln.de/meteo.php?show=En_We_Ue
If anything makes me skeptical about the skeptics it is the continual drum-beat claiming that all the measurements are wrong or that it’s all UHI, or the satellites are calibrated right, or the data has been manipulated in odd ways, etc.
Again, suppose the data is essentially correct, and globally speaking, 2010 turns out to be the warmest year on record. What scientific reason would AGW offer for this?

R. Gates

In my last post, this is the full German link I meant to give:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/Klimastatistik/baurtempjahrgross.gif
Tell me why this data is not to be believed? And what explanation would AGW skeptics give for the warmth of 2010 if not AGW?

Enneagram

The above graph is absolutely false!. Everyone check own closest red spot and say if it is correct right here. This will be a kind of “fake red spots” investigation.

If single climate sampling stations are found, when the record is examined, to currently be ‘warmed’ by some mysterious statistical manipulation to ‘bring them into line’ with other stations a considerable distance away from them, what faith can lay people such as I have in the record as stated by the national and international organisations responsible for compiling the various charts of the earth’s warming or cooling. I have had experience of surprisingly different microclimates in a small geographical area that has little difference in altitudebetween sea level and 100 metres above mean sea level at high tide between each microclimate. The concept of an ‘average temperature’ in such an area may be statistically valid, but for all practical purposes is an absolute nonsense. Or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?

DirkH

The “hottest 6 months” is making the rounds in German news already. So it’s well orchestrated; most news from the English speaking part of the world takes 3 or more days to arrive here. This one was obviously blasted through the news agencies with a big “urgent” mark on it.

Sean Peake

Considering that NOAA is an advocacy group (I’ll never forget Lubchenco’s schooling of Congress with her classic chalk in vinegar experiment), I’m not surprised by the data for the year-to-date on its site that spans from 1880 to 2010 (click for hi-rez image):
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats_sup.html
It’s also interesting to compare its June temperature departure map for the US with the degree-days map for Jan to June 2010:
http://uspest.org/wea/gis/NV_50us.png

Ian E

Tom Rowan says : ‘If you are at home right now you can watch the British open live. No one told the Brits it is the hottest year on record. Every last one of them is bundled up! It looks like November over there right now. Wool caps, hands in pockets, sweaters, wind breakers and winter coats!’
Actually, we (in GB) have had a couple of very good summer weeks – but this has now reverted to average or sub-average temps for the time of year. Of course, we had a very long, very white and totally wretched winter, followed by a very late and rather poor spring. Indeed, our spring and the pollen season (I get hay-fever alas) has been about three weeks late – despite our ultra-leftie British (Yes, it still uses that Obama-unfriendly term in its official name, despite most beeboids swooning at the mention of the great one!) Broadcasting Corporation keeping on telling us how our seasons are getting earlier and earlier!

R. Gates

Again, these storms are a frequent occurrence in the Northeast in the Winter (I grew up in NH and now live outside of DC). BUT, for Baltimore/Washington to actually get any snowfall from these storms requires…wait for it! – UNSEASONABLY COLD WEATHER! Just like we had last winter in December and February!
Now I ask you, how are these SNOW storms going to increase in frequency in the WARMING climate!?!? Sigh.
_____________
Did you miss our entire discussion on the cold weather this past winter when it was actually occurring? Are you aware that Greenland and other parts of the Arctic were seeing record warmth this past winter? You may want to do a bit of research about the Arctic Oscilation and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly to understand where all the really cold air came from last winter. There’s only so big of a cold air “reservoir” over the Arctic at any given time in the winter, and if it’s unseasonably cold somewhere in the south, then it also has to be unseasonably warm somewhere in the north– as it was this past winter.

I’ve noticed the same thing. NOAA anomaly maps are consistently 1-3 degrees too high along the Front Range.

Athelstan

Who gives a stuff what NOAA say, nobody believes a damn word they say, the T record is bent.
What if (statistically it is the ‘warmest’ ever in the history of the universe?) it don’t mean a damn thing in the northern hemisphere, Temperatures are off, get used to cold winters and never mind what the ‘experts’ tell you, three years ago the experts were telling us, how everything in the financial world was “hunky dory!”
Same difference, economics/climatology it is all in the end guess work because we do not understand the basic underlying drivers of climate temperatures and in the financial world the capabilities (incapability) of man’s stupidity and greed.
The oceans and the sun, their interaction on climate……….lets just concentrate on understanding them, man-made CO2 is a non sequitur.

Tom Rowan says: July 16, 2010 at 11:30 am
No one told the Brits it is the hottest year on record.
I lived in UK for a while now, most of the time summer is pleasantly cool, none of the continental Europe’s deep-fry. I think it is the Arctic factor:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-factor.htm

Enneagram

Psychiatrists would call it a projection from the subconscious of NOAA. 🙂

R. Gates

stevengoddard says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:53 am
I’ve noticed the same thing. NOAA anomaly maps are consistently 1-3 degrees too high along the Front Range.
____________
So if the error is consistent, and didn’t just start this year, then the warmth of 2010 must be correct because it is relative to the other years with the consistent error. And there is no NOAA involved in these independently taken temperatures from C. Europe that go back to 1761, and essentially match the same kind of global temperature rise that others are reporting:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/Klimastatistik/baurtempjahrgross.gif

TomRude

These NOAA averages are an example of anti-synoptic reality garbage that State AGW proponents produce in order to fit the reality into their agenda.

TomRude

R Gates writes:
“Did you miss our entire discussion on the cold weather this past winter when it was actually occurring? Are you aware that Greenland and other parts of the Arctic were seeing record warmth this past winter? You may want to do a bit of research about the Arctic Oscilation and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly to understand where all the really cold air came from last winter. There’s only so big of a cold air “reservoir” over the Arctic at any given time in the winter, and if it’s unseasonably cold somewhere in the south, then it also has to be unseasonably warm somewhere in the north– as it was this past winter.”
If only you had a clue about atmospheric circulation you’d avoid posting such rubbish.

BarryW

I’ve lived in the DC, Baltimore area for over 60 years and rarely do lake effect storms reach the area. They dump in the Appalachian mountains long before they get here. Southeastern lows that often start over Texas are the ones that cause the brutal dumpings that we do get, like last winters. Because DC sits relatively near mountains, the Bay and the ocean, the freezing temperature line and the moisture available can vary quite a bit. Depends on the storm tracks. Sometimes we get dumpings east of the city or on the eastern shore of the Bay and other times the reverse. This year everybody got hit.

Kevin G

R. Gates – as an Atmospheric Scientist, I am well aware of what the AO, and more importantly for last winter here in the mid Atlantic, the NAO, are. So by your logic, it seems that you are supporting an argument that in the Global Warming world, the mid-Atlantic is apt to experience DJF temperatures 10 F below the 1971-2000 mean, in order to sustain more frequent snow storms? By that same logic, does that mean the above average temps in Greenland are not due to GHG and positive feedbacks – since it appears to be due to inter-annual oscillations, the drivers of which, we don’t understand?
Most importantly, why would these comments then seem to contradict the Global Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. key findings for the Northeast sector:
“The projected reduction in snow cover will adversely affect winter recreation and the industries that rely upon it.”
http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/region-pdf/NortheastFactSheet.pdf
So, in my ORIGINAL context, leaving alone temperatures in GREENLAND which was outside the scope of my comment, why do we have an NCDC climatologist CONTRADICTING the USGCRP findings? double-sigh

Richard Keen

R. Gates says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:51 am
Did you miss our entire discussion on the cold weather this past winter when it was actually occurring? Are you aware that Greenland and other parts of the Arctic were seeing record warmth this past winter? You may want to do a bit of research about the Arctic Oscilation and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly to understand where all the really cold air came from last winter. There’s only so big of a cold air “reservoir” over the Arctic at any given time in the winter, and if it’s unseasonably cold somewhere in the south, then it also has to be unseasonably warm somewhere in the north– as it was this past winter.
……
Right. And if it’s warm somewhere in the north, it’s colder somewhere else. But that’s not what Lawrimore said in attempting to link the snow storms to overall warming. It seems you may agree that the assorted Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific oscillations appear to be the main drivers, not global warming.
R. Gates says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:37 am
Alright, as a 25% skeptic (and 75% convinced that AGW is a real phenomenon), let’s suppose that the measurements (even with some errors) as correct, and that 2010 is indeed the warmest year on record, if even by a few tenths of a degree.
….
Why should I, or anyone familiar with the data, suppose these analyses are correct (or close within a fraction of a degree)? Neither NOAA, GISS, or CRU give all the details of how they derive these global means, and in any case, it’s a functional impossibility to calculate a complete globally integrated temperature from very incomplete coverage. This is especially true for years before satellite, meaning there’s no way we can know that 2005 was globally warmer than 1930.

XmetUK

The UK Met Office data for June 2010 put the temperature anomaly for the UK as a whole at +1.5 Celsius. Table here
.
So, regrettably, the “1C” spot from NOAA in the middle of the UK is about right.

Robert

So we’re back to trying to say that global temperature methods induces warming despite mosher having proven that they don’t. I know he left out the UHI effect and so on but as mentioned above this station is non-urban anyways. AMSU daily temperatures (near surface layer) are still running at the hottest on record for this month so i’m not so quick to insult NOAA. Bad week for WUWT. Mosher proves the methods don’t cause the warming, Dr. Meier shows that piomas is more accurate than pips and skeptical science ruins goddards previous antarctic pieces.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html

Ray

I’ve checked my own temperature anomaly for June 2010 with the average and I get about -0.6 Cesius. On the map above the dots closest to me shows that it should about -1.5 Cesius. It is well known that NOAA adjusts in ways to make the cold cooler and the warm warmer. In any case, my tomatoes are not growing well this year…. it’s darn too cold in the Northwest.

I have to join the protest on that quote. The Lake Effect description is totally wrong (I grew up in the northeast Ohio snowbelt), but “Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north,” cannot be let to pass without derisive comments.
I live in New Hampshire – I gladly sacrificed what could have been a decent snow season just so folks in the mid-Atlantic could experience a real winter (and to annoy my daughter in college south of DC). The vision of Air Force One landing in a snowy Washington marking President Obama’s triumphant return from Copenhagen warmed my soul better than any cup of hot chocolate.
And where did those storms come from? A jet stream tracking well south of average, that’s where! South, I tell you! Just look at Penacook NH at http://wermenh.com/sdd/index.html – just under 50 inches of snow! Two years ago the snow gods gave us the best cherry picking winter on record – 130 inches, 2,565 “Snow Depth Days.” And this Lawrimore completely disses my glorious sacrifice!
Whew, I feel better, thank you.
BTW, where’s Lawrimore’s quote? I couldn’t find here or on the other page (I’ll leave a note there). I found only two references in Google News, the better one includes comments from Joe D’Aleo (he and Joe Bastardi did a good job predicting mid-Atlantic snow) and Marc Morano. See http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/hottest-year-on-record/story-e6frfku0-1225892757018
I need to reply to RGates too, next comment from me.

Tom Rowan

LOL! Meanwhile, back in Realityville, the Brits are still shivering at St Andrews!

Enneagram

This is all about a global optimization of profits for the Elite:
Bringing Climate Change into Global Governance
Little can happen in this world without economic support. So it follows that little will happen in the climate realm until the international financial architecture is revamped to drive positive climate change responses, including increased energy efficiency and robust renewable energy programs.

http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/579

AllenC

Rgates at 11:37 a.m. said, inter alia,
“So where is the warmth coming from, if not from AGW caused in increases in GHG?”
This is EXACTLY what my BIG problem is with the concept of AGW. There is NO proof of its existence. So when a warming trend is observed, the “warmist” have to say “More proof of AGW!!!”. The closest “proof” that the “warmists” have of AGW is their forecasts based upon their theory. Unfortunately, none of those models produce forecasts which aren’t statistically close to reality.
So why is the default answer ” The warmth is coming from AGW caused in increases in GHG”?
Science requires those who hold the theory to provide proof that it can be used to accurately forecast an outcome. If it can’t be be used in such a manner, then the theory is WRONG. Therefore, the theory of AGW caused by small increases in a trace gas is just plain WRONG.

Paul

NOAA shows me in Sweden at -1C but Scandinavia is surrounded by a sea of red all the way to the arctic.
What gives?
Not for nothin’ but I think we broke 80F today and we are practically dying from this heat. The poor cat is spread eagle on the floor, paws pointing up under the celling fan. Glad I am not back home on the East Coast or in NYC this summer!

R. Gates: July 16, 2010 at 11:51 am
There’s only so big of a cold air “reservoir” over the Arctic at any given time in the winter, and if it’s unseasonably cold somewhere in the south, then it also has to be unseasonably warm somewhere in the north– as it was this past winter.
There’s no such thing as a “cold air ‘reservoir'” in the Arctic, the Antarctic, or anywhere else on the planet. Time to read up on atmospheric circulation — concentrate on the Northern Hemisphere for now.

RockyRoad

Does it really matter what they “predict” or what they “announce”? Today’s high was supposed to be 96 degrees here yet at 1:30 p.m. the “official” temperature is 83. I seriously doubt that the temperature will increase by 13 degrees in the next couple of hours, especially since we have a 13-mph breeze blowing. (Maybe they can find several acres of fresh asphalt to help their prediction along.)
Call me skeptical if you want, but I’ve seen so many bogus temperature predictions in the past year or so where the actual high doesn’t even get close to the target temperature that I now believe they massage their predictions with a heated thermometer!

R. Gates says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:51 am

Did you miss our entire discussion on the cold weather this past winter when it was actually occurring? Are you aware that Greenland and other parts of the Arctic were seeing record warmth this past winter?

A lot of the mid-Atlantic weather, but not all, was due to the huge AO last winter. When it really got cranking, the jet stream came off the mid-Atlantic coast, turned north and later in the winter turned east into Canada.
Joe D’Aleo had forecasted a cold winter for New England, and that certainly verified through December. Later though that looping jet let warm air come down from Canada just in time to keep the coldest part of the year from being the coldest part of the year. With that daughter in college, I certainly appreciated the low heating bill.
The AO may well have been enhanced by the southerly push of the jet stream, but I don’t think it deserves much credit for that. Are you aware of how deeply south cold air went last winter? Florida saw a record manatee kill and further south was a major coral reef kill. If you want to balance Greenland and eastern Canada’s warmth, you might be better off looking there. Just expect questions about how the Arctic reached down to the coral!

Frederick Michael

R. Gates says:
July 16, 2010 at 11:37 am
Alright, as a 25% skeptic (and 75% convinced that AGW is a real phenomenon), let’s suppose that the measurements (even with some errors) as correct, and that 2010 is indeed the warmest year on record, if even by a few tenths of a degree. To what would the skeptics attribute this warmth?

This point is worth a lot of attention. It is a sucker’s bet to take the position that the recovery from the Little Ice Age has ended. Too many of us have made that mistake.
The proper skeptic’s position is that the warming in the 70 years since WWII is not much different from the warming in the prior 70 years. What little acceleration has been observed can be chalked up to CO2 but it isn’t enough to warrant concern.
The rise in CO2 has been relentless and significant — and China is pretty much guaranteeing that it will continue. It’ll probably get a bit warmer too. Good.
In a few years, everyone will know that there was no dreaded “tipping point.” The earth will be slightly warmer. Deaths from cold weather will be down. Heating costs will be down. High latitude agriculture will be improved. The warmists will look like a preacher who predicts the world will end on a date certain. After that date, the prediction is tough to defend.
Unless we’ve taken the position that it’ll be cooler — then the warmists will claim they were right. Their apocalyptic prediction will be refuted, but can still be spin doctored.
Do we really want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like that?

Paul A Peterson

Mr. Gates
Assuming the tempature data is correct is not paticulary wise in light of legimate qestions which have been raised about the quality of the Tempature date, and the reluctance of climate scientists to provide verifiable supporting detail. Personally I find placing god like reverence upon human produced information to be not sane.
As you well know one of the key prinicpals of science is the ability for others to reprodce you results and verify the accuracy of your studies. IN ALL CASES WHERE INFORMATION IS NOT VERIFIABLE THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK OF ERROR. Such a risk must be considred in ligth of the political motiviations and almost religious belief in CAWG held by the producers of such information.
You ask us to accepted the unreasonable proposal that the tempatrue records are prefect. Please note that the margin of error is so substantial to make the information upon which you seem to rely no more meaningful than noise.
Second you asked us to brush aside the fact that reported overall tempature change in the last 13 years is not statistically meaningful. And certainly not outside of natural variation. In fact, it is noteworthy how little varaition there has been in the recent past.
And finally you suggest that those with more open minds account for the source of a small change in average tempatures. It is if you do not believe that natural variation has anything to do with the climate.
However, if you were asking if man’s infulence could have had significant infulance in the very small change in global tempatures we have seen in the past few months most at this site would agree that it is certainly possible.
Climate science seems to lack the realization that thier credibility is dependent on their ability to provide verifiable science. When opinions and adjusted data are passed on as science that science becomes a joke.

Don Shaw

Kevin G, thanks for the link
“Most importantly, why would these comments then seem to contradict the Global Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. key findings for the Northeast sector:
“The projected reduction in snow cover will adversely affect winter recreation and the industries that rely upon it.”
Also notice in this link:
http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/region-pdf/NortheastFactSheet.pdf
For the NE that had record snowfalls last year the same government link claimed:
“less winter precipitation falling
as snow and more as rain, reduced snowpack,”
I recall last winter when the NE had huge snowfalls same folks forgot this claim and then said it was consistent with their predictions for the North east because of global warming/climate change. What a bunch of phonies!!

Gary Pearse

R. Gates:
“If anything makes me skeptical about the skeptics it is the continual drum-beat claiming that all the measurements are wrong or that it’s all UHI, or the satellites are calibrated right, or the data has been manipulated in odd ways, etc. ”
This bit of paranoia concerning data should not be unexpected by any reasonable thinker after the egregious manipulations and hiding data and declines revealed by Climategate. Col. Sanders is still in charge of looking after our chickens. Only since Climategate, which came out under pressure from skeptics (there was no hacking, some disgusted insider put all this together and let it all hang out), has a growing number of cooling stories come out from the establishment and skeptics that are no longer blocked from the literature,…. polar bears aren’t in so much danger afterall,… Greenland has seen warmer periods than now …. CAGW press now “engaging” skeptics in civilized debate (why would they do that – invite a bunch of flat-earther deniers to debate with if there wasn’t a sea change and desire to soften the message instead of going down in the frost). Why are scientists not all skeptics now like they were in the golden age of scientific discovery (the consensus used to be a synod of medieval bishops).

Thze June anomaly map surprises me when I compare it to the July 4-11 chart from NASA. Where did all the heat go in July? On vacation?
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-incredibly-rapidly-disappearing-heat/
It never ceases to amaze me what goes on at the NASA culinary institute for climatological arts and data cooking.

Gail Combs

For Fayetteville NC the avg high was 92F for the month and the mean is 90.
In North Carolina it was cold in April and May and did not get up to the “average highs” until the second week of June. A monthly average of + 4C (7.2F) above normal just seems high for a ho hum June.
Remember NASA-GISS has already been caught “adjusting” data to meet the storyline before. This time with CAP & TRADE in the wings the pressure to produce the “correct” product must be even higher.
“The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990’s were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!
It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).
In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a “nice tidy story”. In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be a wonderful thing. According to WattsUpWithThat, a FOIA request by Judicial Watch has landed 215 pages of GISS emails related to errors in handling temperature data from 2000 to 2006 that overstated the temperature increase during that period.”
http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-version-of-climategate-coming.html
FOIA request by Judicial Watch: http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf
Gee this is as bad as the FOIA request about the USDA new HACCP regs. That FOIA turned up over 1,000 noncompliance reports from food inspectors that the USDA had ignored (and so did the Congressional investigation)
Time for some house cleaning in the US bureaucracies.

Green Sand

Re CET: – the Met Office has 2010 ytd below average:-
• Average so far this year
• Average CET to June: 7.50
• Normal CET to June: 7.74
• Anomaly to June: -0.24
• Provisional CET anomaly (up to 15th July): -0.11
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

NZ Willy

Your Coal Creek Canyon graph is for 1983-2010. The mean is marked as being for 1971-2000. It is not. Bad graph. Disappointing on WUWT.
REPLY: Sorry, but you are in error there. The 1971-2000 is the BASE PERIOD, not the data period. The base period is used to calculate the anomaly. All graphs have a common base period of 1971-2000 but different data periods, including the one at the top from NOAA – Anthony

Doug in Seattle

RockyRoad says:
July 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“. . . I’ve seen so many bogus temperature predictions in the past year or so where the actual high doesn’t even get close to the target temperature that I now believe they massage their predictions with a heated thermometer!”

I think this is where most have been for while now. Call it “climate shock” or whatever, but the wolf has cried far more than once too often for me take any of their prognostications or “hottest ever” announcements with anything other than a grain of salt.

hotrod ( Larry L )

Your numbers match up just fine with The National Weather Service climate report at: http://www.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=bou

Explanation of the Preliminary Monthly Climate Data (F6) Product
These data are preliminary and have not undergone final quality control by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Therefore, these data are subject to revision. Final and certified climate data can be accessed at the NCDC – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
WFO Monthly/Daily Climate Data
000
CXUS55 KBOU 011510
CF6DEN
PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6)
STATION: DENVER CO
MONTH: JUNE
YEAR: 2010
LATITUDE: 39 52 N
LONGITUDE: 104 40 W
TEMPERATURE IN F: :PCPN: SNOW: WIND :SUNSHINE: SKY :PK WND
================================================================================
1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
12Z AVG MX 2MIN
DY MAX MIN AVG DEP HDD CDD WTR SNW DPTH SPD SPD DIR MIN PSBL S-S WX SPD DR
================================================================================
1 84 48 66 3 0 1 0.00 0.0 0 9.0 22 50 M M 6 26 50
2 79 50 65 2 0 0 0.00 0.0 0 8.5 20 180 M M 7 24 170
3 84 53 69 5 0 4 0.00 0.0 0 10.1 18 200 M M 7 23 200
4 93 53 73 9 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 8.1 18 240 M M 7 22 340
5 85 54 70 6 0 5 0.00 0.0 0 9.0 20 90 M M 7 3 25 110
6 92 55 74 9 0 9 0.00 0.0 0 9.1 22 180 M M 5 3 30 170
7 94 58 76 11 0 11 0.00 0.0 0 10.4 24 50 M M 8 18 35 90
8 80 57 69 3 0 4 0.00 0.0 0 8.6 21 80 M M 8 18 29 170
9 86 54 70 4 0 5 0.00 0.0 0 9.1 22 160 M M 7 30 130
10 82 58 70 4 0 5 0.01 0.0 0 8.7 28 330 M M 6 138 37 330
11 77 49 63 -3 2 0 0.69 0.0 0 12.7 29 340 M M 8 135X 35 340
12 52 47 50 -17 15 0 0.65 0.0 0 10.7 22 20 M M 10 123 28 20
13 57 48 53 -14 12 0 0.24 0.0 0 10.3 17 330 M M 9 1 21 340
14 67 47 57 -10 8 0 0.00 0.0 0 7.1 20 40 M M 8 32 100
15 79 50 65 -3 0 0 0.00 0.0 0 10.5 17 220 M M 1 22 210
16 89 55 72 4 0 7 0.00 0.0 0 11.3 26 170 M M 2 36 160
17 86 52 69 1 0 4 0.00 0.0 0 8.1 22 180 M M 1 29 180
18 86 47 67 -2 0 2 T 0.0 0 11.1 26 60 M M 3 33 60
19 87 55 71 2 0 6 0.00 0.0 0 7.5 25 130 M M 6 32 130
20 80 55 68 -1 0 3 0.00 0.0 0 7.2 18 40 M M 7 128 28 50
21 89 56 73 4 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 9.9 36 20 M M 6 123 46 360
22 91 54 73 3 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 8.9 26 20 M M 3 37 10
23 80 47 64 -6 1 0 0.00 0.0 0 8.7 17 100 M M 1 31 120
24 95 54 75 5 0 10 0.00 0.0 0 11.9 23 170 M M 2 30 170
25 99 63 81 11 0 16 T 0.0 0 11.5 33 230 M M 4 45 230
26 90 57 74 3 0 9 0.01 0.0 0 11.1 32 320 M M 7 3 46 220
27 83 54 69 -2 0 4 T 0.0 0 6.4 22 220 M M 5 3 28 210
28 91 54 73 2 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 7.7 15 40 M M 3 8 22 50
29 93 60 77 6 0 12 0.00 0.0 0 10.7 23 170 M M 4 33 160
30 92 65 79 8 0 14 0.00 0.0 0 19.1 29 190 M M 2 35 200
================================================================================
SM 2522 1609 38 163 1.60 0.0 293.0 M 160
================================================================================
AV 84.1 53.6 9.8 FASTST 5 MAX(MPH)
MISC —-> # 36 20 M M # 46 360
================================================================================
NOTES: SUNSHINE DATA WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST 2009.
# LAST OF SEVERAL OCCURRENCES
COLUMN 17 PEAK WIND IN M.P.H.
PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6) , PAGE 2
STATION: DENVER CO
MONTH: JUNE
YEAR: 2010
LATITUDE: 39 52 N
LONGITUDE: 104 40 W
[TEMPERATURE DATA] [PRECIPITATION DATA] SYMBOLS USED IN COLUMN 16
AVERAGE MONTHLY: 68.8 TOTAL FOR MONTH: 1.60 1 = FOG OR MIST
DPTR FM NORMAL: 1.2 DPTR FM NORMAL: 0.04 2 = FOG REDUCING VISIBILITY
HIGHEST: 99 ON 25 GRTST 24HR 1.25 ON 11-12 TO 1/4 MILE OR LESS
LOWEST: 47 ON 23,18 3 = THUNDER
SNOW, ICE PELLETS, HAIL 4 = ICE PELLETS
TOTAL MONTH: 0.0 INCH 5 = HAIL
GRTST 24HR 0.0 6 = FREEZING RAIN OR DRIZZLE
GRTST DEPTH: 0 7 = DUSTSTORM OR SANDSTORM:
VSBY 1/2 MILE OR LESS
8 = SMOKE OR HAZE
[NO. OF DAYS WITH] [WEATHER – DAYS WITH] 9 = BLOWING SNOW
X = TORNADO
MAX 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.01 INCH OR MORE: 5
MAX 90 OR ABOVE: 10 0.10 INCH OR MORE: 3
MIN 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.50 INCH OR MORE: 2
MIN 0 OR BELOW: 0 1.00 INCH OR MORE: 0
[HDD (BASE 65) ]
TOTAL THIS MO. 38 CLEAR (SCALE 0-3) 8
DPTR FM NORMAL -22 PTCLDY (SCALE 4-7) 20
TOTAL FM JUL 1 6441 CLOUDY (SCALE 8-10) 2
DPTR FM NORMAL 313
[CDD (BASE 65) ]
TOTAL THIS MO. 163
DPTR FM NORMAL 27 [PRESSURE DATA]
TOTAL FM JAN 1 179 HIGHEST SLP 30.17 ON 23
DPTR FM NORMAL 18 LOWEST SLP 29.48 ON 17
[REMARKS]
#FINAL-06-10#

Then if you pull up the previous months climate reports you find:
May – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 54.0 DPTR FM NORMAL: -3.2
April – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 47.8 DPTR FM NORMAL: 0.2
March – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 40.8 DPTR FM NORMAL: 1.3
February – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 29.1 DPTR FM NORMAL: -4.1
January – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 30.3 DPTR FM NORMAL: 1.1
2009
December – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 24.1 DPTR FM NORMAL: -6.2
November – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 42.6 DPTR FM NORMAL: 5.1
October – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 42.9 DPTR FM NORMAL: -8.1
September – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 63.4 DPTR FM NORMAL: 1.0
August – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 70.3 DPTR FM NORMAL: -1.4
July – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 70.3 DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL: -3.1
June – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 64.4 DPTR FM NORMAL: -3.2
May – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 59.0 DPTR FM NORMAL: 1.8
April – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 45.9 DPTR FM NORMAL: -1.7
March – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 41.8 DPTR FM NORMAL: 2.2
February – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 37.6 DPTR FM NORMAL: 4.6
January – AVERAGE MONTHLY: 34.9 DPTR FM NORMAL: 5.7
Only 3 months out of the last 18 have been over +4.0 deg above normal, so just how do you get an average that comes out that high?
In the first 6 months of 2009 the monthly departures from normal are:
+ 1.2 June
– 3.2 May
+ 0.2 April
+ 1.3 March
– 4.1 February
+ 1.1 January
Average of the 6 is -3.5/6 = -0.58
Looks to me like we are pretty much right on Normal or very slightly cooler (which fits the perception of everyone I know regarding the last 12 odd months. Last summer was cool and we have had several noticeably cooler than normal spells recently.
Or perhaps the left hand is not talking to the right hand and the folks that put out that chart have no clue that their own organization publishes monthly climate summaries that contradict their analysis.
Larry

Every once in a while I venture into pro-CAGW blogs to sample opinions and ideas aired there and I am always startled by the difference in tone in most from WUWT and other sceptical blogs. The nastiness and self-satisfied pseudo-cleverness, the invention of new and increasingly abusive terms for sceptics displays a side of human nature that is quite bleak and horrifying and makes ‘Lord of the Flies’ seem like the blueprint for their social evolution. I can never stay long there as I find the attitudes just too horribly depressing. Strangely enough, some of the regular posters on those sites visit WUWT and adopt a relatively civil and civilised attitude to discussion while they are here. I guess the difference is in the very civilised tone insisted on by sceptical Bloggers such as Anthony, Joanne Nova, The Bishop, Pielke Snr and many others.
I am grateful for that!