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.
I always like to get the average persons opinion on things, especially those that work for a living and don’t have time for politics. My rule is that I don’t provide any feed back, this evolved from having lived in countries that had repressive dictatorships.
The man in the street opinion seems to be that the government climate data is about as truthful as their financial data, or any other government data. From the end WWII til now I have observed the man in the street opinion go from optimism and joy to anger and frustration and then lately to cynicism. This is not a good progression for long term democracy. This evolution of opinion is not confined to the U.S.
REP, if this is the same “A Physicist” who used to hang out at PJ Media, he’s a notorious threadjacker.
Yep, the very definition of cherry picking: find the data that fit your narrative and overlook the remainder.
Extremely well written article. Thanks much.
So if Kansas has 1000 thermometers, then a hot day in Kansas may provide 1000 records? Gosh.
>> Pamela Gray says:
December 27, 2011 at 10:33 am
The direct cause of morning change in temps is not a change in the Sun, but the Earth’s rotation. <<
Nonsense. The direct cause of a temperature change in the morning is when my wife turns the A/C thermostat up.
jrwakefield says:
December 27, 2011 at 8:23 am
“I did a quick program”
No sir, a program, for example payroll, uses addition and subtraction. As soon as you use multiplication and division you are working on a valid scientific model.
Dr. Dave says: “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.”
ID is not a falsifiable hypothesis, so it’s not scientifically relevant. Explain the vagus nerve. Then explain why there are rattlesnakes and why they are all poisonous.
I know that one needs to be careful with what a physicist posts, but it does seem that he has a valid point regarding number of highs verses number of lows. From at least a casual consideration, wouldn’t one expect to see a greater number of highs being set verses lows, if the climate was warming?
I understand the part about it being deceptive in the sense of completely excluding low temp records and in any event would not put much validity in something like this trying to promote the idea of “extreme” weather events, but I’m curious about the validity of more highs than lows being set as an indicator of warming. Shouldn’t we be saying that the data does indicate a warming trend, but says nothing about extreme weather?
There will always be new high/cold records set as long as climatic elements contain 1/f noise.
“It suddenly dawned on me[Dr Dave] that I have been taught Evolution as fact since childhood.”
You mean that one about-
Once upon a time there was this BIG BANG and all the water suddenly appeared for the amoeba to crawl out of and onto land to evolve into all the critters you see about you today children, which naturally means some are more evolved than others..err, no God said all His Creatures were created equal…err no that was Marx who was naturally the most evolved,,err no wait a minute…
Really puts those whacky Creationists and IDers in their proper place now doesn’t it kiddies?
If the weather were random then for a given site in a given month each year for a particular measurement type the following would be expected for a high event approximately based on the harmonic series
1,(1/2,1/3,1/4),(1/5,1/6,1/7,1/8,1/9,1/10,1/11),1/12………1/n ie each group adds to approx 1.
In year 1 by definition a record
In the next 3 years another record
In the next 7 years another record
In the next 20 years another record
So 1/30 sites each month would expect a specific monthly record in the 30th year.
Now 30 days in a month so 30×1/30=1 so a specific daily record for each site for each measurement in each month if it were random on average
12 months in a year x 50 states x No sites per state x record types = 600x No sites per state x record types
High temperature, high rainfall, high wind, high snow, high floods, high drought, high wild fires so thats 7 high types and 600×7=4,200 well past 2,941. Yes I know snow, wild fires aren’t all year round so I’m a bit high but I’ve only assumed 1 site per state so 2,941 looks pretty random to me.
Be very afraid.
Reblogged this on abraveheart1.
Actually you have to hand it to the new Gaia worshippers. They’ve neatly blended their God and Evolution into one Great Global Gruesome Greasum as one of their disciples, none other than Australia’s appointed Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery explains-
“within this century, the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest.
“This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system that will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism.”
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/02/tim-flannery-gaia-worshipper.html
Dr. Dave;
Here’s my personal alternative: Intelligent Self-Design.
If any modification/mutation encodes a selective rule which trims the ‘tree’ of possible mutations in response to a particular environmental pressure, it will be strongly conserved and selected for. Over time, the accumulation of such meta-genes will establish a Genetic Modification Handbook and Policy Manual. See the 95% of the genome which is “non-coding” and yet highly conserved.
This is evolved genetic intelligence, self-guiding and self-amplifying.
John Brignell’s Numberwatch page on the extreme value fallacy.
I gather that NCDC is sufficiently competent to understand; but politicians, wherever they may be, make good use of bad statistics.
I remember sometime in the early or mid 1970’s, when the month of March set a record for being the 1st March in Philadelphia in about 100 years to not break any records.
Keep in mind what “normal American weather” (and that of nearby parts of Canada) is: Acting “normal” just enough to make people think there is such a thing as “normal American weather”. And. all-too-often, go screwball someway or another.
I’m in the part of America that gets crazy weather – the part that’s east of the Pacific Ocean.
The 48 states and nearby parts of Canada are in the “temperate zone”. It appears to me that the word “temperate” works like the word “flammable”. Flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, and temperate means intemperate – not “temperant”. In the temperate zones, especially the northern one, the weather “has a temper”!
Dr Dave,
Evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Put all the rules in place and a universe with all its diversity evolves. If we can figure out the rules, we will then understand all of creation. That is what science is meant to do, find the rules.
wayne Job says:
December 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Dr Dave,
Evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Put all the rules in place and a universe with all its diversity evolves. If we can figure out the rules, we will then understand all of creation. That is what science is meant to do, find the rules.
=========
ID is still god-of-the-gaps. You just infer your god made things happen that we havn’t figure out how they naturally happened. But science does progress, and your god plays a smaller and smaller roll.
Tom Davidson says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:52 am
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.
==========
That’s assuming every number has equal probability, like a lottary ticket. But in reality, it’s a bell curve, “extremes” are by definition those beyond the second standard deviation. Thus the middle temps would be more probable than the extremes of the range. That extends the time it would take to fill all the slots by a large factor (for my test of temps it more than tripled the time).
Son of Mulder’s very ingenious and mathematically well-motivated model gives (approximately) the right number of records, but on the other had, Mulder’s model predicts that records are equally likely to be broken at the low end as at the high end.
That is not what is observed, in any large climate data set. For the past decade, United States temperature records are observed to be far more commonly broken at the high end than the low end.
That is the key point that Anthony’s commentary does not recognize.
REPLY: Bullshit, I recognize and provide a map and pie chart addressing the issue of high temp biases, you simply choose to ignore it – Anthony
“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.”
Not for Canada. TMax has been dropping across Canada since the 1930s. The number of record breaking highs has been steadily dropping, more than 75% are before 1950, and those record breaking temps now are LOWER than record breaking temps before 1950. And yes, I can back all this up with data I downloaded from Environment Canada.
Of course the warmers can get even more record breaking temperatures by taking more accurate temps. They can increase the record breaking temps by 10 times if they get to 0.01C increments.
They get fewer record breaking temps using C than F too.
A physicist says:
December 27, 2011 at 11:08 am
….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.
————————————————————————————————————-
A physicist, cut the patronizing, stick around here and learn from WUWT “folks”, you may find that your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.
Curiousgeorge @ur momisugly December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am
“@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.”
Agreed. This is right on target. At least it’s how I finally worked out a satisfactory arrangement in my ’60s. To me, creation and evolution are not competing ideas at all, but rather the answers to two different questions:
WHAT did God do? Answer: Creation.
HOW did God do it? Answer: Evolution, which we have not yet fully grasped.
Frances Beinecke runs the NRDC.
Their history is full of this kind of alarmism.
‘…In the first six months after the NRDC released its now-debunked Alar-on-apples report “Intolerable Risk,” Washington state apple growers lost $125 million. But when the New York Times cornered Beinecke on the economic impact of NRDC’s questionable (and never peer-reviewed) “science,” she was quick to blame the media. “We never set out to harm apple farmers,” she insisted…”
The “media” she blamed was CBS, whose airing in February 1989 of the 60 Minutes broadcast, “A is for Apples” — a story based in large part on NRDC publication, “Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food”.
She didn’t say that the NRDC, a “non-profit” group, was able to hire a PR firm (Fenton Communications) to help them “sell” their message.
Wait – where else have we heard about Fenton Communications?
Oh, yeah, that’s right – they’re behind Real Climate, aren’t they.
As I said – a history of alarmism…