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.
Anthony,
Since there are so few who will question the establishment your analysis is much appreciated, and in fact, critical to those of us who don’t have a scientific background. However, I tend to get lost when you start discussing the graphs. Therefore, if there is any way you could dumb it down a bit more for those like me, I think it could really help the general pubic understand that there is in fact a legitimate debate.
I could elaborate a bit more on my lack of understanding if you are interested. Just let me know.
Thank you for all your hard work.
I have added Siberia to the “hot-spots” examined. Also, the Greenland temperatures are compared with AMO showing a strong correlation. See the updated http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010.htm
I have lost count on how many times WUWT has caught the “official thermometer” readers cooking the books.
Anthony has caught them lowering past tempuratures to give the impression that present tempuratures are higher.
Anthony has documented what we must conclude is purposely poor recording sites to give the impression of higher tempuratures.
Places that have no recording sites are always massaged and “estimated” hotter than actual sites close by.
The raw data is homogenized, cooked, and served up piping hot and then the actual data is “lost,” “deleted,” “misplaced,” or eaten by a climate denier dog.
How many times do these folks have to be caught commiting data fraud? I guess if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to verify the tree rings, we should discount everything the “experts” tell us. Science is supposed to be about the search for the truth and not the proposition of a lie.
Well I am quite sure that it IS possible to graph “scientific Information” in a less communicative way than NOAA used here; but seeing as how I don’t have a PhD; Dr Laura HAS a PhD; I cannot fathom what such a method might be.
NOAA has about maxed out, on minimizing information content.
I’m told that NO message contains more information than White Gaussian Noise; since the next data value is infinitely unpredictable; which means that the message is 100 % information about what the signal is.
Unfortunately; nobody has yet succeeded in determining WHAT the subject matter conveyed in a white Gaussian noise “message” even is; so they all remain undeciphered.
Who knows what the hell Mother gaia; is trying to tell us in her white noise messages.
For that matter who knows what the hell NOAA is trying to tell us with this graphic ?
Ya know Anthony .. not to rain on your parade, but .. just looking at the Africa Plot, it is easy to see what NOAA did.
Most every spot is surrounded by real data points. It seems they just averaged the surrounding data points to fill in the missing data. While that is not the most scientific thing to do, one would be hard pressed to prove that the points are somewhat accurate.
On the otherhand, you have a very nice point on the Greenland and Canada data. There doesn’t seem to be the same qualifying surrounding points as noted in the Africa Example.
So 10,000+ scientists are either actively conspiring to falsify the truth, or are really stupid (oh, right, PhDs) and easily swayed (like scientists aren’t the most cantankerous bunch of humans ever created). Hmmm, I guess that eliminates stupid and easily swayed, so…
You know, I like a good conspiracy theory (IMO Oswald had lots of help), but climate skeptics take the cake. I believe this must be the most massive conspiracy ever imagined in the history of the planet. If you can think of a bigger one let me know (and the tobacco corporations telling us lies for 50+ years about the cause of lung cancer, while millions upon millions of Americans were killed, doesn’t count — too few participants).
@jon Rom
“I believe this must be the most massive conspiracy ever imagined in the history of the planet. If you can think of a bigger one let me know”
Oops, the catholic church and their abusing priests of course. My apologies.
But science is not a rigidly hierarchical single organization, right? Far from it.
The actual page for June on the NOAA site has two images the second (the one you posted) is clearly labeled (blended) right next to it, the first image (which you failed to post) clearly shows the real data situation, which explains I guess why it’s not here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=6&submitted=Get+Report#introduction
If you wish to say NOAA is missing out data or falsifying data it might help your credibility if you don’t leave out important information in your own story, but then with this graph included you don’t really have a story.
Got a problem with the data quality? You miss the obvious. The temperature anomaly is hotter in locations where population densities are low and monitoring is poor.
David says:
July 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm
And in other news yesterday …
Have you driven a Ford lately?
AGW globalism is wonderful. …..
…. Cheap cars for everyone!
Err what were you saying about credibility David?
Maybe it was it something about NOAA inadvertently misdirecting the essential focus.
NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever – Oh Yeh!
NOAA’s headline should read:
Jan-Jun 2010 warmest ever – if you use a small sample of cherry picked data, manipulate it statistically and ignore the UHI effect.
First of all, thanks for WUWT! I think all of those examining the dot size are giving NOAA way to much credit. I think there are only 5 different sizes of both red and blue dots. Each size representing a 1 degree difference. And the smallest size dot of either color on the figure represents 1 degree.
I think it’s also quite possible that NOAA has misplaced a decimal, and the anomalies should actually be in tenths of a degree?
Ralph: The dots in the ‘key’ go in 1 degree steps but the dots on the graph itself go in smaller increments.
Did you do what ANY other scientist would do when faced with an apparent conflict in data analysis ? Did you contact NOAA and ask them if your analysis of NOAA data is correct, and if not, what you did wrong, and if you did the analysis right, why NOAA reported a different result than you expected ?
I did not think so, because this is not a scientific posting….
Also, when talking about “missing data” for some 5×5 grid squares, it appear clear that you do not understand that NOAA uses satellite data which is bias-adjusted by ground station data to produce it’s final global result for the global result. How could you miss such an important piece of information here ? What’s up with that ?
In short : Please clear up the science before you claim “missing data” and “false impressions” or similar unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing.
You are doing the community a dis-service by posting half-baked stories that are only created to validate the preconceived belief about scientific data analysis, and climate data in particular.
@Rob July 20, 2010 at 5:28 pm
You are making a straw man argument.
The rhetorical question, “Have they no shame?” now has a hard, documented answer.
Anthony, you’re a fool. You’ve compared the blended satellite-and-land-station data with maps of land station locations. It seems incredible that you’ve completely missed the fact that there are no land stations in the middle of the oceans, yet data points are shown for the oceans on the NOAA map you use.
Here is the map you should have used with land-station-only data. As you can see, the data is missing in exactly the places it should be:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2010&month=6&ext=gif
They have these things called satellites these days, maybe you should look into that?
Came back for another look at the article, and it suddenly occurred to me that something was missing. None of the areas showing cooling were “spot checked”. If there’s a “heating” bias in the warmer areas, do the cooler areas show any kind of bias when stations are missing or in how the raw data is “homogenized”?
What made me think about that was seeing this again right after reading another article about the cold snap in South America.