I’ve noticed there’s a lot of frenetic tweeting and re-tweeting of this “sound bite” sized statement from this Climate Central piece by Andrew Freedman.
July was the fourth-warmest such month on record globally, and the 329th consecutive month with a global-average surface temperature above the 20th-century average, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
It should be noted that Climate Central is funded for the sole purpose of spreading worrisome climate missives. Yes it was a hot July in the USA too, approximately as hot as July 1936 comparing within the USHCN, No debate there. It is also possibly slightly cooler if you compare to the new state of the art Climate Reference Network.
But, those comparisons aside, here’s what Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman and NOAA/NCDC won’t show you when discussing the surface temperature record:
Since I know some people (and you know who you are) won’t believe the graph above created by taking the final adjusted USHCN data used for public statements and subtracting the raw data straight from the weather station observers to show the magnitude of adjustments. So, I’ll put up the NCDC graph, that they provided here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
But they no longer update it, nor provide an equivalent for USHCN2 (as shown above), because well, it just doesn’t look so good.
As discussed in: Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments on April,13th of this year, this graph shows that when you compare the US surface temperature record to an hourly dataset (ISH ) that doesn’t require a cartload of adjustments in the first place, and applies a population growth factor (as a proxy for UHI) all of the sudden, the trend doesn’t look so hot. The graph was prepared by Dr. Roy Spencer.
There’s quite an offset in 2012, about 0.7°C between Dr. Spencer’s ISH PDAT and USHCN/CRU. It should be noted that CRU uses the USHCN data in their data, so it isn’t any surprise to find no divergence between those.
Similar, but not all, of the adjustments are applied to the GHCN, used to derive the global surface temperature average. That data is also managed by NCDC.
Now of course many will argue that the adjustments are necessary to correct the data, which has all sorts of problems with inhomogenity, time of observation, siting, missing data, etc. But, none of that negates this statement: July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC
In fact, since the positive adjustments clearly go back to about 1940, it would be accurate to say that: July was also the 864th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment to the U.S. temperature record by NOAA/NCDC.
Dr Spencer concluded in his essay Warming in the USHCN is mainly an artifact of adjustments :
And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.
To counter all the Twitter madness out there over that “329th consecutive month of above normal temperature”, I suggest that WUWT readers tweet back to the same people that it is also the 329th or 864th consecutive month (your choice) of upwards adjustments to the U.S. temperature record.
Here’s the shortlink to make it easy for you:
USHCN2 adjustments are much larger than the USHCN1 adjustments in the graph above
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/quantifying-the-size-of-the-ushcn-adjustment-fraud/
Smokey says:
August 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm
USHCN is only the U.S. [“adjusted”] data. But the central question concerns global warming. So let’s look at the global satellite record, which is by far the most accurate temperature measurement.
Sorry for my dumb, but what is TLS as labeled on the graph?
“Final USHCN adjusted data minus raw USHCN data Graph created by Steve Goddard”
What?
mbw wrote: “It is truly amusing that these adjustments are somehow causing glaciers to melt and numerous species to shift their habits. How do they do that?”
We only have good ice data since 1979, and there is good evidence that the ice has reached this level before. Also, Hansen himself used to attribute a significant amount of the black soot that settles on ice to its melting, but that is hushed now.
Daveo says:
August 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Smokey on August 19, 2012 at 7:12 pm
No smokey, the adjustments are there for a reason and are clearly explained.
What is dishonest is the TLS graph you put up earlier in this thread, and called it global temps.
That is so much BS. I and many others have seen the Menne 2011 presentation. The only positive adjustment would be sensor movement (TOB is done as of the MMTS migration). After 2000, when they said they were done, we are 12 more years of adjustments that ONLY go UP. In my industry, this is called “tampering” and product gets recalled. Unless, you can prove to me that the population around the sensors has been declining, your “CLEARLY EXPLAINED” carries no value. I looked at this “CLEARLY EXPLAINED” and it is nothing more than a description of papers that many of us are quite aware DO NOT justify the adjustments. If anyone were actually looking, all of this data product would have to be recalled.
As populations increases around a sensor, temperature go DOWN in your world (Which is why one would bump the temperature UP)? TOB adjustments are not longer acceptable, we have seconds of observation frequency with the MMTS systems. What is your or Jan’s defense of such obvious tampering?
Satellite record for Lower Troposphere from MSU:
Trend +0.133K/decade
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Zeke Hausfather says:
August 19, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“Final USHCN adjusted data minus raw USHCN data Graph created by Steve Goddard”
What?
If you have a better representation of these *UP* adjustments, please, indulge us…
Walter Dnes – is it possible for the general public to get ahold of raw and adjusted GHCN data for analysis?
Raw and corrected data is available for most major temperature series, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ for the links. However:
Regarding the “Headline”, the primary upward adjustment is for time-of-observation (TOBS) changes, as seen in http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ushcn-adjustments.jpg – adjustments needed due to stations (mostly rural) shifting when they take their measurements to earlier in the day. See Vose 2003 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL018111.shtml), Karl et al 1986 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986JApMe..25..145K), where the effects of these shifts are discussed – they artificially bias the record colder.
TOBS is clearly seen in the records when looking at individual stations (offsets when recording times change), easily replicable via Monte Carlo testing, and if ignored you will be working with data that has known errors. This is also one of the issues with the Watts et al unsubmitted paper – TOBS primarily affects rural (less staffed) stations, and the use of uncorrected data in that work makes separating out station differences far more challenging.
In the meantime, while technically correct, the tone of the opening post insinuates that the temperature record has been artificially modified, rather than (as per the literature and the records themselves) had errors corrected to provide the best data possible. As seen by many of the commentors happily extending that into accusations of lies, deception, and other nonsense.
I consider that unfortunate, and (IMO) consider the opening post simply rabble-rousing rhetoric.
David Sanger says:
August 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Satellite record for Lower Troposphere from MSU:
Trend +0.133K/decade
I notice you like simple linear trends, regardless of what the data actually follows. 8<)
So, if the actual thermometer readings need to be "adjusted" upwards to approximate a linear trend, then what does the raw data do?
[Can we] justify all of the consistent, repeating positive changes by NOAA based on a single, unverified, unrepeated 1988 paper by one person 24 years later? (Well, two papers: Hansen is spreading his NASA-GISS temperature trends over 1200 km based on HIS 1987 paper…..)
Maus says:
August 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Compelling information, good analysis and summary.
Thank you.
Some folks didn’t like my previous chart. So they will probably hate this one.
It is misleading to put a headline up which in effect questions the authenticity of the method but does not give an explanation about the reasons.
I suggest the reasons that the adjustments are positive is that many stations have been/are moved to areas with less localized influence and hence are cooler. To make the stations comparable a positive adjustment would need to be made which then influences the overall average adjustment.
It would seem overly trite and implausible to suggest that people make adjustments, openly declare them and would be deliberately biasing the adjustment.
July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment
Am I interpreting this correctly that each of the last 329 months had a 50/50 chance of being adjusted up or down, depending on circumstances, but it was always up for 329 consecutive months? The chances of this happening by pure chance is 2^329 = 1 x 10^99. This is more than the number of atoms in a billion billion universes!
Regarding my last post, my apologies – the graph I linked to (here at WUWT) does not appear to have the correct labeling: TOBS corrections have been erroneously labeled as “station location quality adjustments”. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif for a correctly labeled graph, with the individual effects of the various corrections on the record shown at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif
From the USHCN page, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html :
Raw and corrected data are shown in http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif – note that the adjustments are actually quite small compared to the observed temperature swings.
KR says:
“…adjustments needed due to stations (mostly rural) shifting when they take their measurements to earlier in the day.”
Have the vast majority of US temperature readings shifted to earlier in the day? Is a similar adjustment in the opposite direction made for those stations where measurements have shifted to later in the day? Have the temperature readings continued to be taken earlier and earlier in the day to justify making ever larger adjustments?
TonyM says:
“I suggest the reasons that the adjustments are positive is that many stations have been/are moved to areas with less localized influence and hence are cooler.”
I find it hard to believe that stations that have been moved to cooler areas outnumber the ones that used to be rural and have gradually become more urban and thus warmer. Is there any evidence that UHI has become less of a factor for the majority of US stations?
TonyM says:
August 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm
…
I suggest the reasons that the adjustments are positive is that many stations have been/are moved to areas with less localized influence and hence are cooler. To make the stations comparable a positive adjustment would need to be made which then influences the overall average adjustment…
Prove to me with the *CLEARLY EXPLAINED* USHCN that these were moved stations over the past 10 years. If you can, I will donate $10 to your charity. Not enough? Imagine that.
Moved stations CAN NOT out weigh UHI, siting, etc.
Jan P Perlwitz:
I am sure there is a super computer at you disposal that give us the list of site moves since 2000?
For some of the latest work on these adjustments it’s worth looking at Williams et al 2012 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/williams-menne-thorne-2012.pdf), where they examine random pairwise stations, noting that:
It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.
REPLY: Perhaps if you had the benefit of knowing what I do, you’d understand better. For example, demonstrate that each stations actual TOBS change time data was used to adjust the temperature data for that station.
To use the cleaning analogy, would you use the appropriate lens certified cloth/paper/brush for the job, or would any old random rag do for cleaning a precision lens? – Anthony
Werner Brozek says:
August 19, 2012 at 9:12 pm
July was also the 329th consecutive month of positive upwards adjustment
Am I interpreting this correctly that each of the last 329 months had a 50/50 chance of being adjusted up or down, depending on circumstances, but it was always up for 329 consecutive months? The chances of this happening by pure chance is 2^329 = 1 x 10^99. This is more than the number of atoms in a billion billion universes!
Yup. That is how auditors in the real world find the *huh?* or “What do you think you are doing?”.
Interesting: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm
KR says:
August 19, 2012 at 9:46 pm
For some of the latest work on these adjustments it’s worth looking at Williams et al 2012 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/williams-menne-thorne-2012.pdf), where they examine random pairwise stations, noting that:
When applied to the real‐world observations, the randomized ensemble reinforces previous understanding that the two dominant sources of bias in the U.S. temperature records are caused by changes to time of observation (spurious cooling in minimum and maximum) and conversion to electronic resistance thermometers (spurious cooling in maximum and warming in minimum).
Okay, but when does the TOB stop being an influence? God, this is just something else.
When, the, fancy, electronic, devices, replace, the, old, nasty, mercury, sensors, that, old, man, Cricket, records, on, his, stone, and, charcoal… does the TOB adjustment(S) stop?
So, this “spurious cooling in maximum” is okay with you. Have you verified this with a mercury device? Do we just build cities around all of our agriculture to minimize the *HOT* rural effect? It does not work both ways?
If you understood the literature, just a little, the most was the impact was the 6am LOW in urban areas. Also, there is apparently a LAMINAR issue with big tall buildings. Nature’s wind can not flow over such rough surfaces without leaving a little heat behind. Oh my… gasp!
The only thing “spurious” is the fact that buildings in a CITY convolutes measurements, and therefore, must be excluded from measurement records.
No, Hoser,
This is on the level of bollocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit
Being proud of a a statistically improbable event of having to adjust a (B) slope for so long, is reprehensible.
Honesty, if the temperatures were so high, why would ANYONE have to PAD them?
Dr. Deanster says:
August 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm
How come we can’t get the Main Stream Media to report on this Graph from the NOAA??
It would seem to me that the Graph itself would put much of the AGW hyperventilating to rest.
____________________________________
Because there is a lot of money to be made off CAGW and the owners of the press are linked to those fraudsters in one way or another. At minimum through advertising dollars, or in the case of General Electric, outright ownership.
A look at the ownership/boards of our news media is enlightening.
This criticism has a lot more merit than the earlier article that
mistook a tennis court for a lake.(http://terc.ucdavis.edu/stateofthelake/StateOfTheLake2012.pdf )
Tamino agrees:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/climate-fail-california-governors-office/
IMO global surface temperature charts or other global indicators would be even better than US only surface temperature charts, when discussing global warming.
@RACookPE1978 the comment was made earlier by @Smokey “let’s look at the global satellite record,” and then he [she] gave a link to a graph which, as pointed out by @Daveo and @tjfolkerts was actually “Lower Stratosphere” temperatures, which as expected are declining.
The source for the graph, and also the TLT “Lower Troposphere” graph I linked to (which shows an upward trend) is this page of satellite data from Remote Sensing Systems:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
Also of interest is an interactive presentation of recent and historical satellite temperature readings (since 1980 or so I think) from different channels corresponding to frequencies and altitudes.
There’s quite a lot of info on the site also about their methods and algorithms.
Anthony Watts writes:
That I had set up a “GISS approved smear page” is a made up assertion by Mr. Watts.
So, apparently there is no argument by Mr. Watts in his posting regarding the quote cited by him, which was about the statistics of the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly.
And my reply here to Smokey’s comment he made in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/19/july-was-also-the-329th-consecutive-month-of-positive-upwards-adjustment-to-the-u-s-temperature-record-by-noaancdc/#comment-1061075 has been vanished altogether, so it appears. Well, Mr. Watts can do this at his discretion as he likes, since it’s his blog.