NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder

See update below: New comparison graph of US temperatures in 1999 to present added – quite an eye opener – Anthony

There’s been a lot of buzz and conflicting reports over what the BEST data actually says, especially about the last decade where we have dueling opinions on a “slowing down”, “leveling off”, “standstill”, or “slight rise” (depending on whose pronouncements you read) of global warming.

Here’s some media quotes that have been thrown about recently about the BEST preliminary data and preliminary results:

“‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.” – Dr. Richard Muller

In The Sunday Mail Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties:

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ – Dr. Judith Curry in The Sunday Mail

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in an essay at The GWPF wrote:

“The last ten years of the BEST data indeed show no statistically significant warming trend, no matter how you slice and dice them”. He adds: “Both records are in reasonable agreement about the length of time without a significant warming trend. In the CRU record it is 15.0 years. In the University of Alabama MSU it is 13.9, and in the Remote Sensing Systems version of the MSU it is 15.6 years. “

In the middle of all those quotes being bandied about, I get an email from Burt Rutan (yes THAT Burt Rutan) with a PDF slideshow titled Winter Trends in the United States in the Last Decade citing NCDC’s “climate at a glance” data. This is using the USHCN2 data, which we are told is the “best”, no pun intended. It had this interesting map of the USA for Winter Temperatures (December-February) by climate region on the first slide:

Hmmm, that’s a bit of a surprise for the steepness of those trend numbers. So I decided to expand and enhance that slide show by combining trend graphs and the map together, while also looking at other data (summer, annual). Here’s a breakdown for CONUS by region for Winter, Summer, and Annual comparisons. Click each image to enlarge to full size to view the graphs.

Winter temperatures and trends °F, 2001-2011. Note that every region has a negative trend:

Summer temperatures and trends °F, 2001-2011. Note that 5 of 9 regions have a negative summertime trend:

And finally here is the Annual yearly mean temperature trend for the last decade. Since 2011 is not yet complete for annual data (though is for Winter and Summer data), I’ve plotted the last decade available, from 2000-2010:

Only 1 of 9 regions has a positive decadal trend for the Annual mean temperature, the Northeast.

This data is from USHCN2, from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Note that I have not adjusted it or even self plotted it in any way. The output graphs and trend numbers are from NCDC’s publicly available “Climate At A Glance” database interface, and these can be fully replicated by anyone easily simply by going here and choosing “regions”:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

I find the fact that summer temperatures were negative in five of 9 regions interesting. But most importantly, the trend for the CONUS for the past 10 years is not flat, but cooling.

The trend line for the contiguous lower 48 states looks like this for the same period when we plot the Annual mean temperature data for 2001-2010 (we can’t plot 2011 yet since the year isn’t complete):

And if we back it up a year, to 2000, so that we get ten full years, we get this:

So according the the National Climatic Data Center, it seems clear that for at least the last 10 years, there has been a cooling trend in the Annual mean temperature of the contiguous United States. Pat Michaels in his GWPF essay talks about 1996 :

A significant trend since these periods began is not going to emerge anytime soon. MSU temperatures are plummeting and are now below where they were at this time of the year in the 2008 La Nina. NOAA is predicting an extreme La Nina low in 2012. If the 1976-98 warming trend is re-established in 2013, post-1996 warming would not become significant until 2021.

So when you run the NCDC “climate at a glance” plotter from 1996 for the USA on Annual mean temperature data for the contiguous United States for 15 years of data, you get this, flatness:

Warming, for the USA seems pretty “stalled” to me in the last 10-15 years. Bear in mind that BEST uses the same data source for the USA, the USCHN2 data. Granted, this isn’t a standard 30 year climatology period we are examining, but the question about the last 10 years is still valid. “Aerosol masking” has been the reason given by the Team. Blame China.

For the inevitable whining and claims of cherry picking that will come in comments, here’s the complete data set from NCDC plotted from 1895. I added the 1934 reference line in blue:

Interestingly, we’ve had only two years that exceeded 1934 for Annual mean temperature in the United States and they were El Niño related. 1998 and 2006 both had El Niño events.

While the United States is not the world, it does have some of the best weather data available, no pun intended. Given the NCDC data for CONUS, it certainly seems to me that warming has stalled for the United States in the last decade.

UPDATE: 11/06/2011 8AM PST

When I wrote the post above, I had concerns that the 1998 and 2006 peaks might not have actually exceeded 1934. I didn’t have the energy to explore the issue last night. This morning looking anew, I recalled the GISS Y2K debacle and recovered the graphs from Hansen’s 1999 press release. This was originally part of “Lights Out Upstairs” a guest post by Steve McIntyre on my old original blog. Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in 1999 than it is now. Much of this can be attributed to NCDC’s USHCN2 adjustments.

=============================================================

Steve wrote then:

In the NASA press release in 1999 , Hansen was very strongly for 1934. He said then:

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability.Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.

This was illustrated with the following depiction of US temperature history, showing that 1934 was almost 0.6 deg C warmer than 1998.

From a Hansen 1999 News Release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

However within only two years, this relationship had changed dramatically. In Hansen et al 2001 (referred to in the Lights On letter), 1934 and 1998 were in a virtual dead heat with 1934 in a slight lead. Hansen et al 2001 said

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6)… the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree.

From Hansen et al 2001 Plate 2. Note the change in relationship between 1934 and 1998.

Between 2001 and 2007, for some reason, as noted above, the ranks changed slightly with 1998 creeping into a slight lead.

The main reason for the changes were the incorporation of an additional layer of USHCN adjustments by Karl et al overlaying the time-of-observation adjustments already incorporated into Hansen et al 1999. Indeed, the validity and statistical justification of these USHCN adjustments is an important outstanding issue.

============================================================

I’ve prepared a before and after graph using the CONUS values from GISS in 1999 and in 2011 (today).

GISS writes now of the bottom figure:

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States

Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth’s surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]

Also available as PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.

So clearly, the two graphs are linked, and 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the “warmest year”. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C.

And they wonder why we don’t trust the surface temperature data.

In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. As Steve McIntyre often says: “You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys”.

============================================================

UPDATE2: 10:30AM PST 11/07/2011 – Dr. Pat Michaels writes in with an update.

Anthony–

The post on Muller is a little long in the tooth but I do need to correct something.

The comment was that I said NOAA was predicting an “extreme” La Nina in 2012.  That was true when I wrote it, but since then the October 31 forecast has come out and I used that in my most recent posting on this at the Cato site:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13827

Here’s the relevant portion from the text:

We are currently experiencing another — for now — moderate La Niña, or the cold phase of El Niño. Satellite temperatures, as of this writing, have dropped below where they were in the previous La Niña of 2008, so 2011 isn’t going to be particularly warm compared to the average of the last 15 years.

In addition, the latest forecast from the Department of Commerce’s Climate Prediction Center is for the current La Niña to become stronger and persist through at least the first half of 2012:

La Niña forecast, October 31, 2011. La Niña conditions exist when the temperature anomaly is below -0.5°C. The ensemble mean of the current forecast (dashed line) is for colder conditions than now to persist for at least the first half of next year.

Consequently, 2012, like 2011, is not likely to be particularly warm when compared to the last 15 years.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
224 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Miller
November 6, 2011 1:13 am

This type of irresponsible reporting of the actual facts places the whole multi-billion dollar climate industry into peril.
Tens of thousands of decent, honourable people have their livelihoods dependent on only having their carefully interpreted data released to the public.
What could these people do, if your kind of irresponsible reporting became better known? These are difficult economic times, they might become unemployable and that would be terrible.
The public needs to have information, especially on climate, carefully filtered to it by sources it has been told are responsible and accurate. You should realise reality and truth are very dangerous for untrained minds, these both require constant adjustments and filtering in order that the general public only receives what is deemed best for it.

Editor
November 6, 2011 1:22 am

The individual temperature records show a very different picture to the global one. Here is CET -temperatures are dropping like a stone
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb

Denis of Perth, Australia
November 6, 2011 1:23 am

i have one question……and i am starting to ask this every web site i can……how much is too much carbon dioxide?……
humans live in alaska….and marble bar (australia)……so do not tell me about temperature ever again…..
if the problem is carbon dioxide….what is the amount when we all die…..

Don R
November 6, 2011 1:25 am

Come on NCDC, switch to Celsius

Rosco
November 6, 2011 1:29 am

Please tell me that ENSO meter isn’t swinging left.
After a year where we had only ~2 months without substantial cloud cover I’m not looking forward to another cool wet summer – making it almost 3 in a row.

TomatoWoman
November 6, 2011 1:30 am

Thank you all. I am now happy a tomato gardener!
I live in Denmark and started my amateur tomato gardening career 3 years ago. Need I say that I failed big and, consequently, suffered from severe mental health problems and low self esteem because of my unsuccessful production.
After reading the comments here, my ego got a big boost. Life is worth living again! I may not be as lousy a tomato grower, as I first assumed.
You guys have made my day!
A big thank you to RockyRoad for the newspaper hint. I will try that next “summer”…..

Laurie
November 6, 2011 2:07 am

6 ripened beefsteak tomatoes, 50 cherry tomatoes. Garage has 3 plants hanging with green tomatoes which I had hoped would ripen. We’ve had two good snow storms already. Counter covered with green tomatoes and they will not ripen. Bah!

Stephen Richards
November 6, 2011 2:25 am

Here in SW France we have had the best year ever for garden ‘fruit’. I still have some strawberries, pumpkin and tomatoes to pick but that will be the last. In recent years there appears to have been a shift in the seasons. Spring has been late, summer has been average and autumn long. Winter has tended to arrive with a bump although winter here is no more than a cold night, usually.

Stephen Richards
November 6, 2011 2:27 am

climatereason says:
November 6, 2011 at 1:22 am
The individual temperature records show a very different picture to the global one. Here is CET -temperatures are dropping like a stone
Hey Tony, did you see the viseo on the talk given by that ——- Black at the BBC. His version of the graph is totally diffferent. WUWT?

Sandy
November 6, 2011 2:54 am

“if the problem is carbon dioxide….what is the amount when we all die…..”
The air you breathe out is about 4% CO2 which is 40,000 ppm. So CO2 can’t hurt until it displaces the oxygen and you die from asphyxiation.
At the other end plants die when CO2 gets much below 200ppm which would kill all live.
So at 400ppm and rising things are moving in the right direction. 😉

Editor
November 6, 2011 3:06 am

Crispin in Waterloo says: “As the AMO and PDO are both negative…”
The AMO is not negative, and has not had a negative reading for more than two years:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

Allan M
November 6, 2011 3:11 am

I wonder if Richard Black (oops! I just spat on the keyboard) is reading this?

richard verney
November 6, 2011 3:25 am

climatereason says:
November 6, 2011 at 1:22 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I can certainly confirm that temperatures in London have been dropping these past 6 or 7 years. We have had a series of cooler summers and much colder winters. In fact snow has been quite common!
I have now moved to Spain and these past couple of weeks have been unusually damn cold and I am even thinking about lighting a fire which I would not normally think about until December (but that is just weather [no saec]).

Peter Plail
November 6, 2011 3:33 am

I can’t resist entering the tomato proxy debate.
My experience with greenhouse tomato crops this year maps the years weather well here in rural NW England. A slow start due to a cool, extended spring. First harvest several weeks later than usual (although I changed the types of tomato grown this year so wouldn’t place too much reliance on this) but have subsequently had bumper crops over an extended period, and am still harvesting the last few. My neighbour still has outdoor tomatoes ripening on the plants. Autumn here has been consistently warm and wet with many trees still bearing leaves and autumn raspberries still cropping well.
Nevertheless I would caution against drawing too many conclusions from the performance of garden crops, since the best year I experienced had more to do with the acquisition of a cart-load of horse manure than the climate.

Shona
November 6, 2011 3:40 am

“Grape growers keep very good records over long periods of time. One might do a study of places such as Côte-d’Or where wine grapes have been grown since before there was France.”
Actually a French professor has done this. Also grain sale records. As I understand it it shows LIA and MWP -But no runaway modern warming.

Steve T
November 6, 2011 3:43 am

This year I tried an Italian plum tomato plant with good results. The one plant appeared to be somewhat more resistant to the bugs and fungus that affected the other tomato plants. Perhaps that is just because it is new and next year the enemies will be geared up for it! I shall try again next year.
Steve T

Gail Combs
November 6, 2011 3:53 am

Sandy says:
November 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I wonder if 1934 really has been beaten.
Sandy says:
November 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I wonder if 1934 really has been beaten.
_________________________________
No. It has not
NOAA admits to “Adjusting” data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
Graph of Adjustments from article: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Blink graph of effects of Hansen adjustments on USA data: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments: http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

Amino Acids in Meteorites
November 6, 2011 3:56 am

REPLY: Maybe we need a global garden tomato success index as a proxy for temperature – Anthony
Why not? James Lovelock uses daisies.
;^)

Dr. John M. Ware
November 6, 2011 4:02 am

Here at my place in central Virginia, the spring crops of peas and arugula were excellent, and stayed around later than usual. Spinach and lettuce hardly germinated at all. Summer crops were a disaster. Tomatoes grew well, hardly bloomed, set maybe 3 fruit all summer. Eggplants were even worse. There were a few hot spells, and I at first thought they had affected the plants negatively; but now I think they were too late and too short. We planted pumpkins, which sprouted well, grew tremendously, had a few flowers, and produced one (1) pumpkin about the size of a potato; the vines died, all of a sudden, and I harvested the pumpkin, which rotted in a couple of weeks. Compost. Granted, I am not a high-tech or gifted veggie gardener (though we do grow other plants, mainly 15,000 daylilies, which of course did just fine, though mostly they bloomed about 2-3 weeks later than normal); but these results with the vegetables were dismal. Oh, I forgot the lima beans: Lots of great plants, occasional blooms, not one bean. Killing freeze has already arrived, last week of October, 2-3 weeks earlier than normal. Purely anecdotal evidence, to be sure; and yet, a few years ago, killing freeze didn’t arrive till the first week of December. (I also point out that my daylily seeds, planted as usual March 15-20, did phenomenally well, never encountering the burning heat that so often crisps them up by mid-June.)

Bomber_the_Cat
November 6, 2011 4:07 am

Denis of Perth, Australia says:
November 6, 2011 at 1:23 am
“if the problem is carbon dioxide….what is the amount when we all die…..”
CO2 is considered to be toxic at atmospheric levels above 5% (50,000 ppm), although Its effects usually become noticeable when levels reach 20,000 ppm. Compare this to the current atmospheric level of 400ppm. If you are indoors at the moment, you are probably experiencing 800 to 1,000 ppm.
Most National Health and Safety bodies typically specify a limit of between 5,000 and 10,000 ppm, for continuous exposure to CO2 in the work place.
CO2 at concentrations around 20,000 ppm. is often pumped into commercial greenhouses to kill animal pests and, of course, promote plant growth.

Philip Mulholland
November 6, 2011 4:23 am

John F. Hultquist

50-75 pounds of dark green ones into the compost?
Try Granny’s Green Tomato Chutney

Allan M
November 6, 2011 4:25 am

Following on:
I wonder if Richard Black grows tomatoes?

November 6, 2011 4:37 am

Denis of Perth, Australia says:
November 6, 2011 at 1:23 am
…how much is too much carbon dioxide?…
[…]….what is the amount when we all die…..
Don’t panick, please.
NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the US) has good online data on that.
NIOSH REL (Recommended Exposure Limit) for CO₂ is 5,000 ppmv. It is more than 12 times above current atmospheric concentration (which is somewhat below 400 ppmv), so we still have quite some safety margin.
It is worth explicating that REL is supposed to be a limit below which no ill effect whatsoever is expected for a substance, so it does not mean right above 5,000 ppmv “we all die”, quite the contrary.
Exhaled air has a CO₂ concentration of about 4% (40,000 ppmv), which happens to be the official IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health) value, while LCLo (lowest concentration causing death) is 90,000 ppmv. With high enough concentrations the real danger is in losing consciousness. If rescued in time and normal breathing is restored, there is no lasting toxic effect.
At the same time CDC says “It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951 *]”. It makes sense; as long as ambient level is below that of exhaled air, the body should be able to get rid of it. The warning about normal oxygen content is important, for it is often the case that high CO₂ implies low oxygen, like in ill ventilated vine cellars (but you should be able to test it with a candle held well below your head, preferably attached to a stick).
Actually even long term exposure to 1% (10,000 ppmv) is quite safe. Below that level no one, including the respiratorily challenged, experiences any effect, not even slight drowsiness.
* Schaefer KE [1951]. Studies of carbon dioxide toxicity. New London, CT: Navy Department, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Medical Research Laboratory, U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Vol. 10, Report No. 181, pp. 156-189.

Gail Combs
November 6, 2011 4:42 am

jack morrow says:
November 5, 2011 at 8:07 pm
It does not matter as long as the progressives are in control of the world economies and the political structures. They will continue their barrage of climate control policies. The only way to stop this is by the vote. What is it that people don’t understand? What will happen if they win again? Hmmmm?
_________________________________________________
If you really want to know read what World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy has written:
Of What Use is Global Governance? : http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
WTO Chief Says World Facing New Leadership Patterns: http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/284/
(Note: Maurice Strong of the 1972 First Earth Summit and Kyoto Accord is now senior Advisor to China…)
Pascal Lamy: Need Truly Global Monetary System: http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/

Welcome to the website of the National Intelligence Council. The NIC is a center of strategic thinking within the US Government, reporting to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and providing the President and senior policymakers with analyses of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community….
The National Intelligence Council is pleased to release Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture. The report, produced in conjunction with the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies, is a follow-on to the NIC’s 2008 Global Trends 2025 study. Global Governance 2025 provides an informal contribution to an important international debate on the way forward for global, regional, and bilateral institutions and frameworks to meet emerging challenges such as climate change, resource management, international migration flows, and new technologies. While not policy prescriptive, the report shares a strong belief that global challenges will require global solutions…..

http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
Global Governance 2025
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture: http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
NIC’s 2008 Global Trends 2025 study: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html
Global Governance 2025 | Atlantic Council
http://www.acus.org/publication/global-governance-2025
The idea is to use the EU as a model where the masses vote for an “elected leadership” who takes their orders from an UNELECTED international group. It does not matter what the masses want they will be over ruled all the while being told they are living in a “Democracy” Think the US bank Bailouts.

richard verney
November 6, 2011 4:44 am

Global warming as I and many others have been saying for a long time is not actually a global issue but rather a local issue/phenomen. It is clear that the ‘global’ part of the mantra is claimed only for political reasons, namely we are all in it together, we all need to act to solve a common problem that affects us all. This is a clear lie. It is undoubtedly the case that warming is very variable and whether warming and the effects thereof is a good or bad thing will very much depend upon where one happens to live. Overall I think that global warming would be a damn good thing for the planet as a whole and all species of life, although it does not appear to be happening to any significant extent.
Although the United States may not be a good model for the world as a whole, there is little reason to doubt that it is anything but a good model for the habitable areas of the Northern Hemisphere. There is a good mix of areas some of which will be influenced by the Atlantic or by the Pacific and large areas that are so far away from any ocean not to be affected by sea temperatures.
I therefore consider the data relating to the United States to be of particular interest and worthy of consideration as to what this is actually telling us about the most populated areas of the planet (the central area of the Northern Hemisphere being the most populated zone of the planet).
It would be good to see a similar assessment being made of China and Russia.