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
Doug in Dunedin says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:10 pm
R. Gates says:
“I’ve still not heard a satisfactory answer to the basic question: Why is 2010 so warm if not for AGW?
So warm R Gates? But what is so warm? It seems to me that this is much ado about nothing. Over the eons temperatures have risen and fallen to higher and lower levels than we are witnessing now over say the last 100 years. You seem to want to attribute this latest to set of variations to human influence. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with you rather than with the likes of me. I don’t need to prove anything or offer any explanation of what appears to me to be a perfectly acceptable climate.
For my part, I see nothing exceptionally warm about it. For example, we have recorded the coldest temperatures where I live since 1947 and the coldest a little further away since 1871. Our summer wasn’t very warm either– in fact rather dismally cool. So much then for the warmest year on record that you like to quote.
Doug
____________
I’m not picking on Doug here, because I think his comment is very typical of some skeptical mindset. There is s tendency to begin to speak about the weather in your local area, snow in Florida, or personal anecdotes when looking at the climate data. We are talking about a few tenths of a degree here folks, spread out across the entire globe. Unless you happen to live in the Arctic, and your village is experiencing the permafrost melt (that is unquestionably happening), then is very possible that you might not have any personal experience with global warming that you would notice. Moreover, it is entirely possible that the world could be warming due by a few tenths of a degree over the past century, but your local area could be seeing colder weather.
Presently, I choose to accept the validity of the general temperature increases we’ve seen, (even with some minor data issues). The AGW hypothesis does offer a reasonable explanation, but there could be some as yet unknown natural cycle that is causing the warming, or contributing to the rise. I find this less probable then then 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s. But as I’ve stated before, I am not a catastrophic believer in AGW, so it is not a make or break political issue with me whether or not humans are causing global warming. It is purely a scientific interest at the present moment, and from a purely scientific perspective, the CO2 induced AGW hypothesis seems the most reasonable. I do find it interesting that true-believers on both sides of the issue gravitate toward political polarities, and this is my first clue that science has been left behind to be replaced by their faith in their cause and their emotions.
Re: Steven Mosher says:
July 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm
From my perspective Mr. Mosher’s “lesson” in logic looks like a typical warmist use of straw man arguments in a boring attempt to negate the scepticism surrounding unsupported claims made by CAGW proponents, not to mention their numerous conflations of coincidence and causality.
savethesharks said:
“That, my friend, is as transparent, as CO2 gas.”
_______
And there’s the rub isn’t it, as CO2 is NOT transparent to all frequencies of electromagnetic raditation. for if it were, we certainly would not be having this discussion, for many different reasons, but namely, we wouldn’t exist as a species, and secondly, if we somehow did exist, we would be discussing the GH global warming potential of CO2.
Finally Chris, I do listen and learn from the scientists and others who frequent WUWT. That is exactly why I’m here. I’ve learned a great deal from many who post here. But I’m also confident enough, after my own personal 25+ years of studying this topic that I know a few things myself, and when I read what I consider to by lame, errant, misguided, muddle-headed, politically motivated statements, I’ve go no problem questioning them.
The truth, you see, is as tranparent as CO2…meaning of course, that you have to really look at it from all angles and realize that it is not transparent at all and will take a bit of work to uncover.
What percentage of the temp spike for the last 18 months is attributed to the El Nino vs humans activity? The moment you can PROVE what that percentage is, I’ll abandon the deniers and sit quietly in the back of your church listening to the AGW doom and gloom.
Can we honestly call this El Nino weak? Or are we calling it weak because of the failing prediction that El Ninos are supposed to get stronger and with more frequency? Even a statistical tie with 1998’s El Nino is a loss for AGW crowd… isn’t it?
Moderator,
Please remove Chris from Norfolks name at the end of my last post. It was an accidental paste and makes it seem like he is to be attributed with my statement. My apologies…
REPLY: Done, Anthony
@toby: “Suppose record temperature anomalies continue to be set in 2011, 2012, 2013 …”
And here’s what realclimate has said one year ago: “If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”
Same, Prof. Mojib Latif, a leading German climatologist has said a year or two ago, that the expected warming will not show up before another or two decades.
Does it mean that they are sceptics as well now? And you are the one who knows better?
Despite that, some institutions can’t resist and are hunting records, calling out a year the hottest ever after 7 months already.
What I know is that industrialization with increasing use of energy, sure warms part of our environment, what seems to be a good thing.
Instead of showing local weather, surface temperature observation is now misused to indicate climate change. But as time goes, former rural stations became urban or even airport stations and surfacestations.org shows how “super-reliable” thenths of degrees are registered. Then these poor data are even somehow enhanced by people who may have taken Stephen Schneider’s position about science and truth. GIGO.
So I tend to not overestimate the human influence and CO2.
And I can’t stand unscientific alarmism at all.
@R. Gates “…with some minor data issues”
Not sure, if all starts with those readings, as it does, it is “minor” that
– 90% of the US stations do not meet their own organization’s standard, causing a artificial warming
– the net of stations has thinned out on purpose, resulting in an cross-calculated artificial warming
– the general usefulness of once- or twice-a-day readings under specific daily weather patterns, as shown in, for me, enlightening contributions (Theo Goodwin) to this post.
– raw data are treated in different, not always reproducable, ways by employees whose employers are strict followers of AGW.
Again, it all starts with that data and we talk about thenths of a degree …
What do you think?
If you compare the first map with the second, in my neck of the woods, you notice an entire area of below normal temperatures was apparently “homogenized” right off the face of the earth.
To be specific, notice in the second map that most of Maine, and southern Vermont and Northeast New York State, are below normal. Then look at the first map. The entire area is covered by a red dot which, as best as I can tell, indicates two degrees above normal.
Either the second measurements are saying the first are wrong, or the first are saying the second are wrong. As both are put together by NOAA, either NOAA is copping out, or NOAA is copping out, for, after all, Mr. Gates states:
“I think it is a huge cop out to say the measurements are wrong.”
When NOAA homogenized the cold temperatures over Scandinavia right off their map, a few months back, there was such an uproar from Scandinavians that NOAA apparently doesn’t dare do it any more, (judging by the way Scandinavia is an island of blue in Europe in this map.)
Jason S says:
July 17, 2010 at 8:15 am
What percentage of the temp spike for the last 18 months is attributed to the El Nino vs humans activity?
___________
Take a look at the charts on these pages, (click on sun on the right hand side) and see what longer term signal you can see through the “noise” of solar cycles and ENSO:
http://www.climate4you.com/
Especially note the the solar cycles riding atop the longer term up trend. You can also spot the El Nino of 1998 very readily, as well as the level period of no warming during this last solar minimum, with a resumption now in 2010. It is obvious that El Nino played a role in the short term warming, but is not the cause of the longer term up trend. It is obvious that the solar cycle plays a role in short term warming or cooling but is not the cause of the longer term up trend. So let’s be generous and say that this year’s warmth is 40% based on El Nino, and 40% based on the steady growth of CO2 since the 1700’s, and 20% based on the end of the solar minimum and increasing total solar irradiance since 2009. The sun and El Nino are natural cycles that wax and wane, but the longer term upward trend could very well be (and I think likely is) from the steady increase in CO2 over the past few centuries. Note here: not one bit of catastrophic or alarmist talk in my post…no politics for me, just science.
R Gates said:
“The sun and El Nino are natural cycles that wax and wane, but the longer term upward trend could very well be (and I think likely is) from the steady increase in CO2 over the past few centuries.”
You are much in demand here ( I suspect you are really Smokey deciding to have some fun with us 🙂 ) so you could easily have missed the question I posed to you earlier, so I have repeated it as it is very relevant to your comment here;
“Unless you are suddenly going all religious on us and suggesting that man can only exist in a soup of absolutely precise amounts of gases, we need to look at when Co2 can reasonably have started to make an impact. This is surely after 1950 (and doesn’t take into account the life of a CO2 molecule.)
What I find interesting is that-with fits and starts-temperatures have been increasing since our earliest instrumental records.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
So what I want to know is why have temperatures been increasing for at least 350 years, and why do we place such great store on James Hansen’s figures, who merely showed the continuation of that increase from 1880 with Giss.”
Tonyb
R. Gates says: July 17, 2010 at 11:28 am
………
Mr Gates
You appear to be very well-informed and well-versed with the ways and means of global temperature movements. My problem is I do not live globally, I just happen to live in an area of England which has the longest recorded temperatures anywhere in the world. I like warm winters, sunny springs and autumns, but one thing I am unable to understand: why month of June is being so obstinate and unwilling to shift despite more CO2 and for longer is being emitted here than many other places?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
If CO2 is evenly distributed in the upper atmosphere, why don’t we here get our fair share in month of June? You might say June and the southern England is not representative of the global state, but that could be said for any place or any month of the year. You might say it needs averaging over wider area or longer period but that would be a weak argument, since you can’t possibly say we should average Arctic with tropics, and here we have 350 years long record.
I do hope you will come up with something good, else your credibility with the readers may suffer badly.
R. Gates says: July 17, 2010 at 7:59 am
There is s tendency to begin to speak about the weather in your local area, snow in Florida, or personal anecdotes when looking at the climate data.—- Moreover, it is entirely possible that the world could be warming due by a few tenths of a degree over the past century, but your local area could be seeing colder weather.
—————————————————————————————
Thanks for your condescension. Well, I might have been relating this in this instance to the local area for this year, but the raw data for NZ shows no warming trend at all since records began in the 19th century here. Of course, you might consider this a local area as well, but from what I can determine, this also seems to be the case elsewhere. From what I can see of the data that you seem to rely on is that it is manipulated data (just as it was in NZ by the CRU acolyte J Salinger) so I take you back to my question what is so warm? The warming that has been manipulated or the warming that is so miniscule that it is of no moment and well within the natural parameters that have been observed over eons?
Doug
We’ve seen the biased machinations performed on temperature data, both by the CRU folks and various faceless bureaucrats in various government agencies. Their work is known as “homogenization”. We’ve seen the problems with the land surface recording stations, the local environmental influences affecting almost every station. Then there are UHI effects which must be”estimated” in order to eliminate that influence from historic data. An analyst with an agenda can bias data in any way desired. We’ve seen the bias in how a massive number of temperature recording stations (thousands of them, almost invariably those at high altitudes, or in colder areas) mysteriously dropped from consideration. The SOP for all these actions, always, is no justification, no documentation, no way to replicate the (now “forgotten) process.
Just in the past day or two we’ve seen (reported on Joanne Nova’s website) yet another kind of of data machination – it’s not just the CRU folks, and it’s not just homogenizsation. This one involves NASA’s machinations with the GISS data and involves extending influence of land temperatures in the northern hemisphere. In effect it makes it look as if it the northern hemisphere surface area is 70% land rather than 30%. How’s that grab ya?
I wouldn’t believe anything claimed by any government agency (or its favorite news media outlet) at this point about anything. However, I have absolutely no problem if it is still warming. My only concern about the continuing b.s. emanating from the warmists (truly the Church of CAGW) is that the government wants to join (if not already a member) that church, and in trying to “save us” will adapt policies (whether based on faulty science dogma or not) which will destroy our nation.
If it’s warming, it’s most likely natural variation, and why not? A few hundred years of warming immediately following 400 to 500 hundred years of The Little Ice Age would seem to be expected. It would be nice if we could explain what’s going on, and that remains worth a honest try.
BUT, when things do start cooling, when there are NO shrinking glaciers, when the sea level begins to drop, THEN there will be time enough to really start worrying. It will be Mother Nature stepping in to do another of her periodic “house-cleanings”.
Think of yourself as little more than potential roadkill. In our case that means speeding around the galaxy and hoping to stay out of the way of something that may well look like oncoming headlights.
June in Slovakia was ~1.2 deg C warmer than 1951-1980 “normal”. Since 1971-2000 “normal” is warmer, the anomaly against 1971-2000 should be even lower. But! NOAA map shows the anomaly to be 2 deg C over here, more than twice the reality.
@R. Gates
You really do like the attention so much so that everything else is frakk all lol, you even go as far as projecting yourself as stupid, assuming it’s just projecting of course.
LMAO, but why don’t you explain it for me?
There are basically two separate debates:
1) How much are temperatures rising?
2) What is the cause of any measured rise?
Debate 1 is answerable by honest experimental data.
Debate 2 is much more difficult. There aren’t multiple Earths with which controlled experments could be performed. There is the “warmist” thesis that it is due to human generated CO2 that is the standard for legislation and press reports. When pressed to defend their conclusions, thay retort ala R. Gates: “So where is the warmth coming from, if not from AGW caused in increases in GHG?”
In my view, this is dishonest science. The history of science is filled with false theories that seemed to fit, remembr Phlogiston, while the correct theories hadn’t yet been thought of or proven.
Ref – Arthur Cohn says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:45 pm
“There are basically two separate debates:…”
______________________________
I’m not disagreeing with your comment, I personally see so many more than two. The fact that so many different groups have pokers in this fire makes it very difficult for everyone; and very confusing. This is why I often use the “Chicken Little” analogy. Many are running around saying “The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!” (for many different reasons) and a few are shouting –as loud as they can– “No! No! The Sky isn’t falling! Stop! Look! Listen!” Interestingly, the vast majority of the carbon units on planet Earth seem to not be listening to the riot in the barnyard, so I guess there is hope after all.