People send me stuff. Today it is this web page from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another official sounding NGO modeled in the WWF funding style of wail n’ beg.
The first thought that went through my head when I saw this web page was the scene from the classic movie Mr. Roberts where the captain, portrayed by James Cagney, finds his palm tree missing and runs through the ship shouting “sound the general alarm!, sound the general alarm!, sound the general alarm!“.
Here’s the introduction:
Climate change increases the risk of record-breaking extreme weather events that threaten communities across the country. In 2011, there were at least 2,941 monthly weather records broken by extreme events that struck communities in the US. Check out the interactive map below to find out what events hit your area from January to October 2011.
And here’s the map:
Gosh, how terrible that there were so many records, right? Hardly any room left to plot any more. That probably explains then why NRDC simply ignored hundreds to thousands of records that didn’t fit the weather is now climate narrative.
The first clue that this really isn’t an accurate portrayal of US weather records comes from the (i) mouseover on the map key (visible on the web page but not in the still graphic).
They completely ignore low temperature records, but pay attention to record snowfall, as if somehow snow and cold are not connected. The lack of lows is confirmed in the methods page:
Methods for Developing NRDC’s “Extreme Weather Map 2011”
A. Criteria for Events’ Inclusion in the Map: Record-Breaking
“Record-breaking” was defined as exceeding the monthly maximum for each event type over the past 30 years. We included two different types of weather event information to build the “Extreme Weather Map 2011”: (1) specific record-breaking weather events linked to a meteorological station location (i.e., point events with latitude and longitude); and (2) record-breaking events that covered larger, multi-state areas and that were notable for their large geographic extent, unusual intensity, or that generated significant damage costs that have already been estimated at over $1 billion.
B. Link to Climate Change
Furthermore, we were interested in mapping some of the types of extreme weather events that have occurred in 2011 and whose occurrence is linked to the influence of climate change. With the November 18, 2011 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s SREX report — “SREX” being the acronym for The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation — some of the linkages between climate change and extreme events have been drawn even more sharply than ever before. For example, the SREX summary finds at least a 66 percent chance that extreme temperatures and coastal extreme high water (which contributes to flooding) have worsened as a result of human activities. And looking to the future, SREX projects that if carbon emissions continue unabated, it is likely that the frequency of hot days will increase by a factor of ten in most regions of the world; that heavy precipitation will occur more often; and that the wind speeds of storms will increase (see the IPCC SREX Press Release). It’s likely, too, that climate change will intensify drought in the future and that, coupled with extreme heat, wildfire risks will increase.
On the other hand, there are other types of extreme events for which the net influence of climate change is not yet understood fully. These include extreme events like tornadoes, which occurred in 2011 and inflicted significant damages and tragic effects in US communities. Because additional studies are needed to determine the potential influence of climate change in affecting tornadoes’ occurrence and severity, we chose to not include these types of events.
…
- Record Temperatures: Monthly Highest Maximum Temperature records and Monthly Highest Minimum Temperature records (i.e., daily records that were higher than recorded temperatures previously set for that month in the period of record for that temperature station) were compiled for 2011. Records, by state from January through November, were downloaded by month and compiled as of November 15, 2011 from NOAA-NCDC. The NOAA-NCDC dataset is based on the historical daily observations archived in NCDC’s Cooperative Summary of the Day dataset, and on preliminary reports from Cooperative Observers and First Order National Weather Service stations, and as such is subject to change. (Data was downloaded from these sites: http://ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/monthly/maxt/2011/08/00?sts[]=US and http://ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/monthly/himn/2011/07/00?sts[]=US.)Values that only tied with prior monthly temperature records were not counted as broken, for mapping purposes, and were removed from the dataset. The Period of Record (POR) represents the number of years with a minimum of 50 percent data completeness. All data was from stations with a POR of at least 30 years. Because the calendar year 2011 is not yet completed, and because there is a lag in full reporting of record-breaking temperatures to the online NOAA-NCDC dataset, the records that ended up in our map have dates ranging from January 1, 2011 to October 31, 2011.The Record Temperature icon means that the monthly highest maximum temperature, the monthly highest minimum temperature, or both exceeded the previous records set at meteorological stations located within the designated county.
No mention of lows or minimums, as if somehow “extreme” is only a one way number.
I’ll give them credit for not shouting that tornadoes are linked to climate change, but that probably has to do with the fact that this myth has been repeatedly shot down and they didn’t think they could sell it with wail n’ beg since people could easily find articles like this one. Too bad they missed this non-linakge to floods. Ditto for wildfires which has an inconclusive link and may have more to do with land management policy than anything else.
They miss all sorts of record low events.
For example, the January 21st 2011, record cold event, while notable by NWS/NOAA standards, merits nary a peep by the NRDC in their map.
Nor does this multi-state record cold event on Feb 10th, 2011 fit the sales effort narrative, even though it fits their criteria of “record-breaking events that covered larger, multi-state areas and that were notable for their large geographic extent“.
And of course, Alaska’s record breaking events like the November 17th -40F record cold don’t even make the NRDC map.
Going to the source of records, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) shows just how many daily and monthly records NRDC is ignoring.
9647 daily record lows and 370 monthly record lows isn’t chump change, unless of course you are the NRDC.
Clearly though, record highs, given the blocking high heatwave in Texas aren’t unexpected. That synoptic weather event has already been shown though to have no climate connection, much like the Russian heat wave of 2010. And of course, given the sad state of bias of the USHCN, GHCN, and COOP network operated by NCDC, with USHCN having over 90% of the weather stations compromised by heat sources, record highs are not unexpected.
What I found most interesting in the NCDC tables though, were the number of records that reflected a cooler than normal daytime high temperature with 29,336 of those compared to the 26,244 record highs. Of course, they don’t dare mention those nor the 1,859 monthly “Hi Min” temperatures compared to the 1,160 “Hi Max” records
So clearly, there’s an agenda, and record lows and cooler than normal daytime highs don’t fit the narrative. It wouldn’t be good business and dilutes the wail n’ beg effectiveness of asking for money to “Take Action“.
Oh and then there’s the $64,000 question – did extreme weather occur before 30 years ago when CO2 was lower? Sure did. Without comparing to earlier periods, this one year is meaningless. This would be a good time to remind everyone why severe weather seems to be getting worse, but is mostly an artifact of our modern age of information awareness.
h/t to WUWT reader Steve for the tip.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is clearly time to panic!
@ur momisugly David L says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:29 am
I’ve hit the point that I’m honestly getting tired of this doomsday crap. Do all ya’ll think we are in the waning days of the hysteria? I hope so. I can’t take much more of it. But I fear we have decades of this nonsense to go, if not more.
============================================
It’s just getting ramped up. It will soon be 2012, and the entire media focus is on Dec 21st. NatGeo, History Channel, etc. are running “Apocalypse ” specials, and they’ve already aired some of their climate doomsday libraries. Buy some popcorn.
For any given measurement (rainfall on a given date, daily maximum temperature on a given date, etc.), if such a measurement has been made for N years, the probability that a record will be set in any given year on that date, if the climate has NOT changed, is 1/N.
If the snowfall on 1 Jan has been recorded for 120 years, then the chance that this coming Jan 1 will show a record snowfall is 1 in 121 (because by then it will have been measured 121 times).
Given that weather records include high (highest and lowest) temperatures, low (highest and lowest)temperatures, rainfall amounts, snowfall amounts, wind speeds, that gives us 7 records that are added to each day. (7 x 365) = 2555 measurements each year at any given site.
With a 1 in 121 chance of each measurement *randomly* setting a record, there will be an average of (2555 / 121) = 21 weather records being set EACH YEAR as any specific site – almost 2 per month.
There is nothing remarkable about an all-time weather record being set *anywhere*.
After a study of historical records for one city (my own, Richmond, VA) I can find no evidence that the frequency of all-time record-setting weather is increasing or decreasing in frequency. The observed frequencies at every stage of the historical record (N years, with N a variable) is statistically indistinguishable from the 1/N rule.
The overuse of the word extreme really bothers me . BTW , while the map shows allegedly record high temps in areas very near to my place , the only record set locally was a new low in August ( I think ) . This was on St Simons Isalnd , GA , where it’s always hot as hades in August .
Smokey,
Excellent comment. As far as I know Dr. Spencer is an adherent of Intelligent Design and not necessarily Creationism per se. For over 50 years I never once questioned Evolution. Some excellent comments on a WUWT thread made me curious about ID so I did a little reading. The ID guys can poke some pretty large hole in the (unprovable) theory of Evolution that I had never considered. Then one day I was railing on about how AGW to taught to children as fact rather than as a theory. It suddenly dawned on me that I have been taught Evolution as fact since childhood.
I’m still a believer in Evolution, but I have enough of an open mind to say that the ID folks are not necessarily wrong.
“What I found most interesting in the NCDC tables though, were the number of records that reflected a cooler than normal daytime high temperature with 29,336 of those compared to the 26,244 record highs. Of course, they don’t dare mention those nor the 1,859 monthly “Hi Min” temperatures compared to the 1,160 “Hi Max” records”
It does seem confusing but I think you’re reading the chart wrong. There are not 29,336 ‘cooler than normal daytime temperatures’, there were 29,336 records set where the daily low (usually nighttime) temperature was higher than any on record, that’s what the Hi Min is the way I read it…. set a record high minimum temperature for the day. There were also 26,244 record high maximum temparatures, while only 9,647 low minimum temperatures. The Low Max’s, as in “the temperature only got up to X today” we at 15,696.
The record high definitely outnumbered the record lows for both the max and min temperature consistent with a warmer climate than existed at the beginning of the 30 year period. I’d double check the meaning of the temperature data, then if incorrect, update the article accordingly before the warmers get ahold of it.
Data used in the study described above is here:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/akq/climate/RIC_Climate_Records.pdf
When they say ‘How to talk to a climate skeptic’
they actually mean ‘how to talk OVER’, ‘how to outshout’,
‘how to silence’ a climate skeptic.
Because they lose any actual debate, they desperately proclaim
‘The debate is over’.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/9loo5gbqce8427xj8AZXg7HMo1_500.jpg
Pamela Gray says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:00 am
Joe, not to state the obious but wouldn’t that be the rotation of Earth causing your warming trend this morning?
Hmm. Friction?
I commend Anthony for identifying the problems with this type of story. It is important to remember that while readers of this web site understand the deliberate errors and exploitation most of the public do not. Using a thirty year climate record is scientifically deceptive, but for most people it covers their period of memory and comparison. They are also deceived because the media has increased reporting and amplified with hyperbole so they don’t have weather reports anymore, they are extreme weather reports. A recent example is the report implying more severe weather in 2011, when the story was based on the increased cost of damage from severe weather.
Despite the evidence of corruption, misrepresentation, and deliberate falsification, not to mention the failed predictions (scenarios?) exposed through this web site and others the level of understanding among even the supposedly informed public is abysmal. Consider the comments by the Chair of the December 15, 2011 Canadian Senate Hearings that finally entertained presentations by four so-called climate skeptics.
“You keep talking about greenhouse gases, and you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and then the H2O factor. There is a colloquialism in the world that has become part of our regular vocabulary greenhouse gases. I do not think anyone really knows what they mean when they say it. Could you give a definition?”
“You keep talking about these leaks and we keep reading about these leaks. I chair a big hospital board and every morning in Montreal I am reading in the paper about stuff that happened in my board meetings. They say, “Oh, well, it’s a leak.” Who are these leakers? Do you have any idea?”
One of the leaked emails effectively said we must not lose the PR battle. This story is another example that they are not, because PR is about spin and you can’t spin the truth. You are unlikely to see the headline “Everything is Normal.”
Statistics one-o-duh. There are reliable statistics for the temperature where I live for about 150 years. The record high and low are both in my lifetime and memory. Only a dope would consider this surprising.
Pamela Gray says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:00 am
Joe, not to state the obious but wouldn’t that be the rotation of Earth causing your warming trend this morning?
Deniar! ;^)
@ur momisugly Dr. Dave,
You will never find the ‘proof’ you seek of either ID or Evolution. All you will find are more questions. At some point you will choose to accept that fact.
Last 30 years means for some reason would pre-1981 data is faulty, bad, dis-continuous, non-relevant, whatever….
What does research say about the consistency and quality of instrumental thermometer records over time?
Nukemhill, I hope u are kidding. The Sun shines at the same rate wherever it hits. It does not heat up. The Earth’s rotation simply brings your sensor into its steady beam. Tomorrow your temp trend may be different. Again, Earth’s fickle atmosphere modulates that sun beam, not the Sun, to any extent that can be detected. The direct cause of morning change in temps is not a change in the Sun, but the Earth’s rotation.
Guess the planet is only 30 years old. Morons.
And these people complain about Roy Spencer being a creationist. At least he figures the earth is 6,000 years old.
May I be quick to point out that this is an example of “ideological bigotry”. I’m a “creationist” also,
but I don’t use the geneologies in the O.T. to conclude 6000 years. The creation narrative is definitely vauge, and does NOT specifiy anything time wise when the “Earth was without form and void”. Perhaps you can also give an explanation for what that means?
Please, DON’T AXIOMATICALLY ASCRIBE “believes” to people based on YOUR “prejudice”.
I don’t even do that to the AWG people, as many of them are now “climate changers” and need to know that we skeptics are NOT skeptical of “climate change”. It happens all the time!
Plots of maximum and minimum daily temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, wind speed: isn’t this the way to see increases in extreme, as opposed to average, weather? Broken down by climatic regions?
Post-notes on a map: very useful (not).
PBS have been doing a similar “record breaking heat” propaganda exercise this year.
An analysis of these “records” in Kansas shows that nearly every station in their list is airport based and only date back to the 40’s and 50’s, thereby missing out the hot 1930’s.
It turns that most of their “records” don’t beat 1934 and 1936.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/record-breaking-temperaturesnot-quite-what-they-seem/
WUWT folks are encouraged to study and use the US Climate Extremes Database to verify for themselves that Ryan’s apprehensions are correct. For example, the number of warmer-than-normal minimal temperatures that are seen in the US on any given day-of-the-year has in fact increased dramatically in recent years.
NRDC, planet saver, is using this kind of garbage to promote increased donations and grants. It seems that its deliberate use of misinformation is actionable fraud against anyone who relies upon the scaremongering and is stupid enough to give NRDC money.
You can break records simply by cutting them up into little pieces, and then saying, “see they are now cut up into little pieces, and each little piece wasn’t there before, and has a unique characteristic of its own”.
The NRDC’s work itself is not alarming. The fact that individuals involved in this cra….er…construction believe it is relevant/meaningful to anything productive is alarming. Pondering the amount of time these folks spent along with the wasted resouces carefully compiling some of the data while oviously purposely ommitting other data that did not fit the narrative leaves this taxpayer firmly convinced the patients are running the asylum.
Lots of record precip events, especially frozen precip. That’s what starts Ice Ages.
[SNIP: linking to a graph with no explanation or context is just thread-jacking. Don’t do it. -REP]