From Alan at Appinsys, who emails that he was inspired by this story on WUWT: A spot check on NOAA’s “hottest so far” presser
“NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record”
The following figure from NOAA shows the temperature anomaly of January – June 2010 compared to the 1971-2000 base period for 5×5 degree grids [http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html]
The problem with the above map: data quality and data manipulation.
The following sections provide some spot checks on the areas of the world exhibiting the most warming according to NOAA. The gridded historical data graphs shown in these sections are from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for January – June. (CRUTEM3 uses a 1961-1990 base period whereas the NOAA data above is for a 1971-2000 base period. This simply shifts the anomalies on the vertical scale, but does not affect the relative trends.)
It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data.
Spot Check – Northern Africa
It is apparently much hotter than usual in the Sahara. But where is the data? Several of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (indicated by the black arrows). Many of the others have one station with very limited historical data. There seems to be an inverse correlation between the number of stations and warming – more stations in a 5×5 degree grid and less warming is observed.
The map figure above shows the location of stations in the NOAA GHCN database (blue G or green B icons) and the red 5×5 icon indicates whether data exists in the Hadley CRUTEM3 database – a 5×5 degree gridded database used by IPCC (plotted at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx). The grid lines are 5×5 degree grids.
In many of the 5×5 degree grids showing 4 degrees warming according to the NOAA map, there are only one or two stations. The figure below shows some of the “hot-spots” in the NOAA map displaying January – June average temperature anomaly from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for 1900 – 2009. In no cases is the warming close to what NOAA indicates.
There is a severe problem with lack of historical data in Africa as well as lack of coverage and gaps in the data. NOAA’s algorithms spread the low quality data across areas that have no data as well as showing warming that isn’t really there.
One must really question the NOAA data when even the areas with many stations seem misrepresented. The following figure shows the area of eastern Turkey which has many stations and shows no warming in Jan-Jun through 2009, but suddenly according to NOAA has 4 degrees in 2010.
Spot Check – Greenland
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data have one station. The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data.
Some of the Greenland stations have long-term data. The figure below shows some of the “hot-spots” (that actually have data) in the NOAA map displaying January – June average temperature anomaly from the Hadley CRUTEM3 database for 1900 – 2009.
Spot Check – Canada
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data
Historical Context
Many parts of the world do not have data for the first half of the 20th century. Without this historical context it is easy to create misleading impressions.
Northern Africa: A lack of historical context. The warming of 1 – 2 degrees since the base period is without historical perspective. This lack of history gives the false impression that the warming is significant.
Greenland: The historical context shows that warming and cooling by several degrees is not without precedent. Recent warming is less than the 1930s. The statement of warming since the 1980s gives the false impression that this is unprecedented.
Canada: Many stations in northern Canada are no longer maintained in the GHCN or CRUTEM3 databases. Warming has been 4 degrees over the last 40 years according to NOAA. The historical context shows similar warming in the 1930s (graph shown previously).
Recent warming in Canada correlates to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The following figure compares the Jan-June temperature graph shown previously for northern Canada with the multivariate ENSO index (from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/).
Sponsored IT training links:
Latest 350-029 dump and 1Y0-A05 practice questions delivers in depth understanding so you will pass 156-215.70 exam on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think this comes close to illustrating the matter.
http://content.comicskingdom.net/9_to_5/9_to_5.20100717_small.gif
Robert says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“North Eastern Canada, and Canada as a whole has experienced the warmest winter on record. According to David Phillips Canada’s leading Climatologist. ”
Oh i know what comes next. Somebody from Edmonton protests.
“North Eastern Canada, and Canada as a whole has experienced the warmest winter on record”
That’s OK: out here in the West we’ve made up for it with an exceptionally wet and unusually cold summer and a ski resort near Jasper apparently had 18cm of snow last night.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=jaspersnow_13_07_2010
Fortunately that’s just weather, not climate, etc.
rbateman says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm
No, it’s not that they didn’t bother using data, it’s that they borrowed a page from GISS.
Who’s borrowing a page from who:
Joseph D’Aleo on NOAA’s divergence from the real world, which NASA/GISS (James Hansen) uses:
1:51 minute video
Someone who has been there says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I wonder what that map would look like if they used all record cold temperatures?
===========================================================
Me too
Is that something that someone has done?
I would like to see that.
Are their own Sea Surface Temperatures correct? :
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.6.3.2010.gif on the 3rd of June which has cooled to
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.7.1.2010.gif
Look at competing data:
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-100613.gif
So thier base sst data is already out there on the far end of the spectrum, then the land data is fabricated where none exists.
Progressive, isn’t it?
And after this seeming destruction of the credibility of one data source, how do you explain the fact that the satellite record, which has no such gaps, is in agreement with this data?
Frankly, m’dear: Your link is broken – 403 error forbidden.
Alan, wonderful analysis and great detective work. I guess I’d better keep my co-op station going, lest Colorado become a missing point and develop a huge red spot!
Perhaps Jefferson somehow foresaw what NOAA, GISS, and CRU would be up to 230 years later when he wrote,
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia
Hence, government funding.
sphaerica says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Far as I know, the satellite data is not the ground data, but refers to the upper atmosphere.
Remember the basic tenet of AGW, that the opposite effect is supposed to occur in the upper atmosphere as the Earth warms?
But, now that you mention it, NOAA borrows from Mann, who spliced tree ring data onto temperature data… and hid the fact.
Sounds like they should have used a different methodology for identifying data quality. In any case, there are over 1800 data points on the graph with less than 50 identified as suspect in this essay. This suggests more than 97% of the data is correct.
Oops. Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out. This one should work. (It’s just a minor joke, but one I found appropriate to this discussion — or to any discussion involving climatologists.)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/Husserl/9_to_520100717_small.gif
Compilations are always difficult unless you know, or somehow show, how good (reliable and meaningful) the data is. When the Alberta Geological Survey began getting into GIS (I called them geologic information systems, not geographic, since the maps and data bases held geological data in a spacial context.) we believed we needed to deal with the situation. The last thing we wanted someone to do was draw conclusions related to scale that the underlying data could not support. Being compilations we added an index inset to the map legend that displayed the scale of the original data we were compiling.
To publish a map, such as temperature or any other anomalies without a clear indication of the voracity of the underlying data, is unprofessional to say the least. If one is interpolating into some “cells” and not others and not showing that and its associated statistical error, it is devious at best and unethical at worst.
This is then simply propaganda and not science. If professional geologists and engineers did a geostatistical analysis of an ore body like this we would be drummed out of the profession. That is if we didn’t have the brains to resign on our own.
gerry says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm
“[…]identified as suspect in this essay. This suggests more than 97% of the data is correct.”
Did i tell you about this marvelous bridge that looks just like what you’re looking for?
Red spots in Central Europe are twice as fat as they should be. June was a bit over 1 deg C against coldish normal 1951-1980. 2 deg C against 1971-2000 is pure imagination.
How do they test the validity of the infilling?
Do they have test cells, where they specifically leave out the data, run the computations get the results and then compare them with the actual data from the cell?
Experience tells me that it is prudent to take the big issues of this life to a higher authority. My highest authority, through 30+ years of marriage, is she that is known as HRH.
I diligently presented the juxtaposition that is our year to date heating bills and the “this is the hottest year on record” press release.
Whoa dude, I am still riding the wave, I have never heard a “civil” servant use such language before! I fear that I may have lost all future control of thermostat. Make ready my dear Chris Buffoon for it would appear that your policies have just launched a very serious woman on a major CO2 production mission!
Good luck Chris, because it isn’t looking good from here.
Whereas I am starting to get a nice warm slipper feeling, the type of feeling that you get from the aroma of freshly ground coffee on a cooling planet.
@Genghis – there is a brief discussion on infilling in Canada here (but with links back to the NASA/GISS paper) ; http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/canada-3-comparing-eureka/
The Canadian data is decidedly strange: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/canada-top-of-the-hockey-league-part-1/
IPCC = Inaccurately Produced Climate Claptrap
NOAA = Notoriously Overestimates Actual Anomalies
NSIDC = No Sensors Indicate Decadal Cooling
Isn’t this a bit pre-mature considering the Model Verifiers haven’t yet shown the models can be replicated proving there’s nothing wrong with the surface station data?
Yup, there’s no warming. NOAA is part of the a big socialist conspiracy. Or there is warming, but it’s completely natural. Take your pick!
/sarc
I don’t like their visually misleading technique of using larger dots for larger anomalies. It gives the impression that large anomalies cover larger area than the smaller ones do.
July 17th, Northern Hemisphere. When Solar Insolation driving meets the apex of average temperatures.
This varies from place to place, but 1 month after Solstice this is the time when the N. Hemisphere is at it’s warmest.
NOAA’s big red paint-by-numbers is released just a day before.
Coincidence, or timed for maximum effect?
They have been found repeatedly this past spring to have been fudging averages in places where millions experience exactly the opposite of what was claimed.
A leopard can’t change it’s spots, but a certain lizard can.
It is 101 today where I live.
My max pre-UHI temp for this date is 107 in 1925, and 110 in 1984 after they paved the streets.
Nothing going on here as regards to record warmth, and nowhere within 200 miles shows any different.
Redding, CA, the hotspot of the Sacramento Valley bar none, saw it’s first 100 degree day last week.
A full month, and then some, behind schedule. Sacramento and Bay Area ditto.
Los Angeles has unusually cold fog inland this summer.
NOAA is full of it.
I mean really full of it.
Mark says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Your point is valid, but it’s not a Mercator projection!
Do a Google search for “werme mercator” (leave off the quotes) for details like in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/20/polar-albedo-feedback/#comment-65276
Yup, there’s no warming. NOAA is part of the a big socialist conspiracy. Or there is warming, but it’s completely natural. Take your pick!
Why the /sarc tag?
My pick is “completely natural”.
What’s yours?
(BTW I would use “eco-activist” rather than “socialist”. And I would use “group think” not “conspiracy”. But that’s quibbles.)