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.
It’s like some people turn out to be like super people, others appear not to even be able to use word. Word. 😉
rbateman says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm
DirkH says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm
No, it’s not that they didn’t bother using data, it’s that they borrowed a page from GISS.
I’ll give a go at image editing to remove the offending +5C red dots that should be white (no data).
_________________________________________________
Thank you from us older folks on ancient computers who are “computer challenged”
(Mommy, I want my slide rule…)
Check the base period. The most frequently used base period starts in 1979 because they tell us that is when satellite coverage started (still can’t figure out why they stop at 2000). Now they include 8 more years of a cooler period, 1971-1978.
For what reason? Obviously to cool down the base in order to show more warming.
Nice try fellas!
“The better, the worse.”
sphaerica says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm
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?
_________________________________________
First the issue is whether or not NOAA is putting out propaganda out data. The satellite record has nothing to do with whether someone is fudging the data. If a lab tech puts results on a Certificate of Analysis without testing the product, does it matter if he guessed the right answer? Or do you fire him for falsifying data?
Why is this article citing January – June 2009 figures when the NOAA chart is for June 2010? Doesn’t exactly seem like a valid comparison to me.
sorry i have to comment on this:
“gerry says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm
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.”
If you make a 3% mistake, and then a 2% mistake, and a 6% mistake, and adjust UHI in the wrong direction, and weight land more than water…. and and and….
if the errors are all in the same direction, they add up.
gerry says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm
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.
__________________________________________________________-
Not hardly. New Zealanders are throwing a hissy fit because they found out their data has been “value added” to create warming trends where none exist. Willis looked at the Darwin Data and found the same problem in Australia. Anthony’s Surface Station Project has found only 10% of the US weather stations meet specification so far and reports from readers in the EU and else where show similar siting problems.
And that does not include the Russians accusing the Climatologists of messing with their data. Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations Remember the raw data sets used by CRU and NOAA are pretty much the same.
If we had honest politicians they would investigate and defund the temperature collecting departments at NOAA and NASA-GISS not to mention tossing a few people in jail for willfully wasting tax payer money.
The Surface Station Project Findings alone should have meant firings of those responsible for the mess.
Pathetic. There are poor families who are struggling to survive, and these greedy SOB’s rip apart our economy, and thus peoples lives….. Fore FAKE Data??? FAKE Data?!?!
And then when we want to speak out, the shut us down, and drown us out. We need to do something about this before the slowly drain the juice out fo our lives.
Can anyone show that the NOAA figures are actually wrong? I haven’t seen any evidence of this so far. We all know that it’s easier to get a 4C anomaly for a single month than for a 6-month period, and the anomaly for Jan-Jun 2009 for a particular location doesn’t seem to have any bearing at all on the anomaly for June 2010. Why should it? Is the author arguing that it couldn’t possibly have been 4C above average in the Sahara last month just because it wasn’t 4C above average in the same place in Jan-Jun 2009? Doesn’t seem to me to hold water.
I notice that there were no ‘spot checks’ for the eastern US. I’ve been hearing a lot about how hot it’s been there. Is anyone arguing that June 2010 *wasn’t* several degrees warmer than average in the eastern US?
way up the thread:
See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/LinearTrends.htm for examples of why linear trends are often not appropriate.
A most excellent article.
Tom T – shrewd observation. NOAA uses two-dimensional images to represent one-dimensional data. Not only are there anomalies without data, but the anomalies are squared. Edward Tufte (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information) would be proud of you.
rbateman says:
July 17, 2010 at 4:56 pm
NOAA is full of it.
I mean really full of it.
============================
But Rob, I thought NOAA….
“understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”
I think that NOAA should be trying, to the best of its ability, to be AGW issue-neutral. If they want broad-based public trust in the information they provide, I think it might be best if they did not any attempt long-term comparative analyses of the data they are measuring, but left that task to other organizations that are completely divorced from the data collection and initial presentation process.
You mean they lied? What? How can this be? Well, how much of the missing data fall within the 1200 km radius? Excellent post!
Just got back and haven’t had time to read all the posts, but, if it hasn’t been said yet…….
One paragraph starts…..
Spot Check – Greenland
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data?
The next area discussed says……
Spot Check – Canada
It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data?
It’s probably late in the game to correct, but it probably still should be. Ya never know when someone may use this post as a reference! I know I will!
Icarus
you’re talking about weather again, and not climate.
I notice that there were no ‘spot checks’ for the eastern US. I’ve been hearing a lot about how hot it’s been there. Is anyone arguing that June 2010 *wasn’t* several degrees warmer than average in the eastern US?
I’ll spot check my country. The map shows the South Island of New Zealand as above average to average. NIWA, not notorious for understating temperature, says average to below average.
The map shows the North Island at +1°C verging onto +2, but NIWA says not quite so hot. More like 0.5°C.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/publications/all/cs/monthly/climate-summary-for-june-2010
Two possible conclusions, neither of which reflect well on NOAA.
1)NOAA’s map is s**t. Quite possible IMO.
or
2) NIWA use a higher baseline for normal. If this is true, then NOAA’s “normal” is an arbitrary standard that even NZ’s – notoriously warmist – institute doesn’t use.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
There seems to be some study understanding the gaps between temperature stations.
History
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Prior temperature analyses, most notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our rationale was that the number of Southern Hemisphere stations was sufficient for a meaningful estimate of global temperature change, because temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
###########################################################
The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes.
############################################################
They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.
Phil says:
@Peter Ward says: “So it seems that the largest red spots — and therefore the highest anomalies — ONLY appear where there is actually no data. What an interesting correlation!”
May be the same thing that was covered here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/is-the-null-default-infinite-hot/
FWIW, I do suspect there is some kind of bleed through of that bias to hot on the anomaly map calculation with reduction in station counts. I’ve just been too busy on other things to try and sort it out. I’m also using an older release of GIStemp so I’d need to find out of the newer version includes the map drawing software (the older release did not – so I could do nothing on the graphs).
My suspicion is that the bug that caused the all red maps was an artifact of a math process being done on ‘no data’ giving the 9999 ‘missing data flag’ but that the use of it in calculations was not being adequately suppressed. The ‘average temperature’ number in the upper corner of the maps showed the 9999 was being used in that calculation, at a minimum. That empty grids are showing up with high values (but moderated by averaging with neighbor cells) would fit that pattern too.
Basically, since there is no formal QA suite published (nor used, as far as I can tell from the code base) the whole package can’t be trusted for any important use.
I would like to propose that we name these red dots without data UFO’s: Ultrared Fabricated Orbs
Mooloo said:
Looks to me like you’re misreading the NOAA chart. None of the dots in or around New Zealand even approach 1°C, let alone 2°C. Check it out for yourself.
Icarus says:
Looks to me like you’re misreading the NOAA chart. None of the dots in or around New Zealand even approach 1°C, let alone 2°C. Check it out for yourself.
OK. I’ve looked at that map, and the only spot in NZ that shows as 0 is over Stewart Island to the south. Christchurch is shown as +1°C and Whakatane as +2°C. Many spots just off the coast including all those on a line north of Whakatane are at +2°C. Most of the south Island appear to be close to +1°C and most of the North Island appear to be between +1°C and +2°C.
This is always a problem with this type of chart. The eye percieves red as bigger than it actually is and blue as smaller, so unless the chart is in high definition, and a set of dividers is available to measure the size of each dot, then appearances are what counts.
Interestingly, the more remote the area, the fatter the red dots. It would be interesting to compare a satellte colour chart with the NOAA chart.
One might find that the NOAA remote area temps are indeed quite inflated.
savethesharks says:
July 17, 2010 at 8:36 pm
At this point, NOAA understands how to present itself as an example of sloppy work.
They missed the cool anomaly in Calif. by 9 degrees F.