From the James Hansen is just wrong department comes some inconvenient data, data that Dr. Hansen or anyone in the media could have easily looked up for themselves before writing irresponsible stories like this one:
Former Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, in a guest opinion on WUWT said:
Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isn’t truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.
I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansen’s own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.
I’ve looked at the data too, and I agree, Hansen’s hypothesis is a dud, and in no way supported by NOAA’s own data to be “scientific fact”. But, because it has been spread by an irresponsible and incurious media, its is a dangerous “dud”.
Let’s go to the data…
In my research regarding why I didn’t think the July 2012 USA Temperature of 77.6F was a record (compared to July 1936 of 77.4F), I spent some time trying to understand how they computed the value, since NCDC offers no way to replicate it and so far has not responded to my query about how it is done.
In conjunction with a switchover to happen next year from simple division averages (TCDD) to gridded averages (GrDD, which they say will be more accurate) NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) offers a visualization tool to plot all sorts of data for the continental USA (CONUS). From NCDC’s U.S. Climate Divisions page:
A visualization toolkit was created to help users examine snapshots of both datasets for the comparison period (i.e., through December 2009). The tool allows the user to select criteria which are of interest and investigate the comparisons themselves. Parameters included in the toolkit are temperature, precipitation, and a variety of drought indices. Changes in monthly, seasonal and annual variability can be examined through the use of the interactive time series plots. In addition, slope (trend) values by decade and 30-year period may also be added to the output plots. This allows the user to take a closer look at the behavior of the data at a variety of smaller time scales throughout the record.
Unfortunately, they don’t have 2010-2012 data online, and I could go to the NCDC FTP site and get the remaining data and plot all of it, but since many people on the alarmist bandwagon don’t trust data plots from skeptics, I thought the fact that these are unmodified 100+ year plots from NCDC directly outweighed the 3 years of data they didn’t provide.
Here’s some screen caps output direct from that visualization toolkit. You can visit it and exactly replicate any of these for yourself.
First, CONUS temperature:
No surprise there. In my opinion, GHCN and all of its airport weather stations tends to make the present warmer than the past, with 1998 being warmer than 1934. But that’s another old story. My real interest in this essay is in precipitation trends and drought trends which don’t go through as many issues with equipment, siting, adjustments, as temperature does.
Here’s national precipitation:
Some people say the precip is down in the summer months due to “increasing drought”, that’s unsupported by the data:
Like with CONUS temperature, there’s an upward trend annual precipitation, and essentially no trend in summer months. This is curious, because if as Dr. Hansen is quoted as saying regarding U.S. Droughts…
“This is not some scientific theory,” Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview. “We are now experiencing scientific fact.”
…you’d expect a downward trend in U.S. precipitation. Interestingly, as shown in the plot above, the driest period for precipitation in the USA is 1951-1956, followed by a big upswing.
But precipitation totals alone is not a measure of drought, soil moisture and other factors figure in too. Let’s look at some drought data. Using NCDC’s visualization toolkit, I’ve plotted the major drought indices based on the Palmer Drought Index. Here’s a description of these indices from NCDC’s page on the current Palmer Index:
The Palmer Z Index measures short-term drought on a monthly scale.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) (known operationally as the Palmer Drought Index (PDI)) attempts to measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought-inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during the current month is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Since weather patterns can change almost literally overnight from a long-term drought pattern to a long-term wet pattern, the PDSI (PDI) can respond fairly rapidly.
The hydrological impacts of drought (e.g., reservoir levels, groundwater levels, etc.) take longer to develop and it takes longer to recover from them. The Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI), another long-term drought index, was developed to quantify these hydrological effects. The PHDI responds more slowly to changing conditions than the PDSI (PDI).
Here’s the plots, note that for the Palmer Index, negative values correlate to drier conditions, and positive values show wetter conditions. First PDSI:
And since some people will argue that summer months are the most affected:
The flatness of the Palmer Drought Severity Index, compared to the upward trends of temperature and precipitation, strongly suggest no correlation between CONUS temperature and CONUS drought severity. But let’s not stop there, let’s examine the other PDI data types.
Here’s the Modified Palmer Drought Severity Index, the operational version of the PDSI, which was defined in Heddinghaus and Sabol (1991).
Here’s the same data by months:
For summer months, the century scale trend is slightly down. But there is still no large century scale trend in drought.
How about the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index?
Still essentially flat. Note that while there are slight upward trends in the divisional data plots (suggesting less drought), NCDC says this is erroneous, and will introduce the new gridded method in 2013. The GHCN values are flat.
How about the short-term Palmer Z Index? Maybe Hansen’s drought correlation is hiding there?
Still pretty much flat, though there’s a spike in the monthly plot for 2009 that beats 1915. As we know, a couple of months of dry conditions does not a long-term trend make.
How about the summer months for the short-term Z-index?
Short term summer months Z index is slightly down in the last 114 years. But not largely so, certainly nothing like the inverse correlation with CONUS temperature we’d expect to see if Hansen’s hypothesis was true.
Pat Michaels, in his previous WUWT opinion piece, noted that Hansen is making a claim that global temperatures are driving U.S drought, and did a scatterplot to gauge correlation between Hansen’s own GISS temperature data (GISTEMP) and the U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index with annual data through 2011:
There’s no correlation: zero, zip, nada. If there were, you’d see the dots align along a diagonal line, there’s not even a hint of that. Of course proponents might say that but, but, but, 2012 was a terrible drought. Yes, it was, it is, but a few months of a not yet complete year of data does not a long term trend make. And, we’ve seen worse in the past.
In a Tweet today, NYT reporter Andrew Revkin agrees, drawing attention to this Sunday essay Hundred Year Forecast – Drought (which he didn’t write), saying:
This 21 century reconstruction of rainfall for New Mexico, done by Henri D. Grissino-Mayer, University of Tennessee, in the paper “A 2,129-Year Reconstruction of Precipitation for Northwestern New Mexico, USA,” 1996; David M. Anderson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center. Full details here.
This paper suggests that what New Mexico experiences today, isn’t really any different from what it has been experiencing in the past, when CO2 levels were far lower. In fact, for the most recent period, New Mexico has had greater rainfall:
PNAS should withdraw the paper, and NASA should fire Dr. Hansen for promoting an opinion unsupported by data as “scientific fact”.
This morning I forced myself to listen to an interview on the CBC with Richard Muller. Very interesting.
I think I understand why people are paying so much attention to him.
Many people and institutions have a lot invested in the ‘fact’ that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming. They will have a hard time admitting otherwise. On the other hand, almost nobody wants to commit economic suicide by making energy prohibitively expensive.
Muller gives folks a way to throw Hansen under the bus while they continue to believe in AGW. Absolutely brilliant! I got two things from the interview:
Hansen & co. are unduly alarmist and should not be listened to.
The best way to reduce CO2 is to assist China (and India presumably) to get off coal and onto natural gas. Fracking is good and gives us time to develop the technologies we need for a long time solution.
I take this as a sign that the-powers-that-be are looking for a way to back away from CAGW dogma. The problem for them is to get rid of Hansen without self-inflicted damage. Muller could be the solution.
Geology Jim:
Thank you. Your comment hit the nail squarely on the head.
Geologists rock! (pun intended).
Hansen plumbs new depths of desperation to satisfy his Attention Seeking Disorder.
Have to feel sorry for NASA – their reputation is soiled as Hansen goes so far off the reservation.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Thanks for this
Typo: “Here’s the plots”…
REPLY: Jeff, I realize your are trying to be helpful, playing typo cop. Your constant objection to this is noted, but I’m not going to change. Here’s why:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/here%27s
Thank you for your consideration in exercising restraint in the future.
-Anthony
Hansen isn’t just wrong – He’s just a complete ………….continue ad infinitum……
GeologyJim says:
August 12, 2012 at 2:52 pm
absofeckinglutely – but then again, as I’m also a geologist, I guess I am a bit biased….but more seriously, there are not many folk more dedicated to the scientific method than real earth scientists, simply because their work is readily available for review and question – it’s there for all to see! (unlike Mr Hansens made up mumbo jumbo media BS)
Curiousgeorge:
re. your comment at August 12, 2012 at 3:07 pm.
Stop it! This is not the place for you to flog your atheism or any other religion. It merely clogs up threads.
Richard
PS In case you think my admonition is an attempt to duck your question, I will answer it. There is only one God but people experience and interpret Him in many ways. Now, you have an answer so you do not have any excuse to not stop it.
A significant factor influencing US drought patterns is not temperature but the sign of AMO or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation . When it is postive [warmer Atlantic SST]] there is less rain in many parts of US and a spatial pattern of drought for the Midwest , Southwest and Rocky Mountains/GreatBasin. A positive AMO existed 1860-1880,1926-1964, and again currently since 1995. One can see that much of the significant negative Palmer Drought index took place when AMO was positive . The warm Atlantic alters the rain fall pattern for the area s noted above.
It’s not confirmation bias – it is fraud and lies.
Here in UK we have a fantastic climate, not too cold in the winter or too hot in the summer. We have enough rain to avoid drought and enough sunshine to grow our crops. But the weather is awful!!
When an alleged scientist confuses climate with weather, then the allegations are correct; he/she is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination!
The story is from the CBC, sadly a government funded Canadian broadcaster that has paid for decades to have David Suzuki preach pseudo-science to the scientifically innumerate.
Oh wow…lamer Romney’s VP is a serious AGW skeptic! Too bad for budding science students he’s also a likely creationist. I can’t vote for reason, only cycle between Earth and Sky religions. It was here in New York state that Jesus handed out now lost golden tablets, according to the future president. I wonder why he didn’t go to China?
John Ray scooped you on this one, Tony, via the No Tricks Zone blog:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2012/08/vp-candidate-paul-ryan-climatologists.html
I was convinced by Pat Michaels’ scatter plot that there was no relationship between temperature and drought in the U.S. This is just icing on the cake.
While Hansen does say in his paper, in the first paragraph under the heading “Broader Implications” the following:
”With the temperature amplified by global warming and ubiquitous surface heating from elevated greenhouse gas amounts, extreme drought conditions can develop.”
His paper is not about proving that statement (which he doesn’t), but it is rather about, as he says in his introductory paragraph:
“The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period.”
Rather than having another Hansen bashing session, it would be refreshing to see some discussion of whether his analysis of the the temperature distributions proves what he say or not.
My initial take is that, of course the current hot extremes are more than 3 sigma warmer than the base period. The extremes were more 3 sigma in the 1951-1980 base period too. That’s how the extremes are defined.
How about it, any takers on a discussion of the paper?.
David A. Evans says:
So as the data don’t support their claims, they’re going to change the way we view it?
Yes, that is precisely the point and purpose of Hansen’s paper. Nothing wrt global surface temp has changed in favor of the CAGW position in the last several years. Predicted to be steeply rising, it is flat (or slowly falling, depending on the temp reconstruction you look at). So, what do you do when you have a naked Emperor? You pretend him some new clothes, and tell everyone that they should be able to see them. Thus the theme of Hansen’s paper.
This business of droughts is really a sideshow, and detracts from an effective critique of the paper. Increased droughts isn’t even a finding of the paper – it’s just one of the throw away ‘everything you see is global warming’ conjectures. Annoying and certainly wrong, but a small drop in this particular bucket of propaganda.
Cliff Mass’s critique is more on point, but even he missed some of the statistical shennigans and he didn’t touch on the rest of the misleading propaganda, which is directed entirely at getting people to see anthropogenic global warming in everything they see.
Just in case I missed the “post comment” button.
All we ask is you cut off the horns and wipe it’s bum please
OMG What about this hundred year drought we are in now as per: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/extreme-weather-and-drought-are-here-to-stay.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
We are all doomed! /sarc off
Jeff Alberts says:
August 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Good luck Anthony. A pedant cannot help himself. Adds nothing to the discussion and I have always been able to figure out what someone is trying to say, even if they have made a typo or grammatical error. Hello again jeff !!!!
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says:
August 12, 2012 at 4:33 pm
*******************************************
Wow! Pretty thin skinned aintcha? Not exactly what I would call tolerant of others.
Jeff Alberts says:
August 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm
> Typo: “Here’s the plots”…
> REPLY: Jeff, I realize your are trying to be helpful, playing typo cop ….
Gentle suggestion, if I may.
There are plenty of proofreaders here, not too many typos get missed. I’ve taken to commenting on typos only when I have something worthwhile to say about the post, then just note it at the bottom of my comment.
My apologies for not having something useful to say here.
matt v. says:
August 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm
A significant factor influencing US drought patterns is not temperature but the sign of AMO or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation . When it is postive [warmer Atlantic SST]] there is less rain in many parts of US and a spatial pattern of drought for the Midwest , Southwest and Rocky Mountains/GreatBasin. A positive AMO existed 1860-1880,1926-1964, and again currently since 1995. One can see that much of the significant negative Palmer Drought index took place when AMO was positive . The warm Atlantic alters the rain fall pattern for the area s noted above.
While AMO and US drought may well be correlated, I can’t see how there could be a causative mechanism for a warmer North Atlantic causing US drought. Air from over the North Atlantic rarely reaches any distance into the CONUS, certainly not as far as the US Southwest. Which makes me conclude there is some common cause (or causes).
Regional drought does not confirm global warming. Nor does regional flooding confirm global warming.
I’d add. Any correlation between AMO and US drought would point to US drought as the cause of a positive (warmer) AMO, through the mechanism of decreased CONUS evaporation, less cloud over the N Atlantic, increased solar insolation, increased SSTs.
PNAS should withdraw the paper, and NASA should fire Dr. Hansen for promoting an opinion unsupported by data as “scientific fact”.
==========================================
I don’t know. I mean sure the paper should be withdrawn, but the fact that it was rubberstamped like that should be a daily post in once skeptic blog or another on a daily basis. And, if Hansen gets fired, we would have a dearth of new material!
It does’nt matter that Hansen is wrong. It has been reported as fact in the media and the majority of people will never see anything else.