UPDATE: NOAA plans to release SOTC at 1PM EST today. Look for updates soon and a special report on today’s release. The map below will automatically update when we have the new December COOP Tavg value, probably later today. I’ll have another post on the differences between the CRN and COOP in the near future. – Anthony
Pursuant to our previous story showing issues with diverging data and claims over time, NCDC has updated the Climate Reference Network Data for December 2012. I’m still waiting on the NCDC State of the Climate report to come in with their number, and I’ll update the graphic (in yellow) when it is available.
Being a state of the art system, it is well sited, and requires no adjustments and the data is well spatially distributed by design so that it is representative of the CONUS. Here’s the current plot (click to enlarge):
Each (small) number in blue represents one of the NCDC operated U.S. Climate Reference Network stations in the CONUS that we use. Here’s the data reports for December and the entire year:
==========================================================
2012 Average Monthly Reports – text files
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201201.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201202.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201203.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201204.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201205.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201206.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201207.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201208.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201209.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201210.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201211.txt
http://crn.intelliweather.net/imagery/crn/crn_temps_national_monthly_average_report_201212.txt
Source for all data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/
==========================================================
The December report looks like this:
==========================================================
TOTALS Totals for T_MONTHLY_MEAN (column 8) = 296.7
Totals for T_MONTHLY_AVG (column 9) = 302.4
Total Number of CRN Stations Included in this Report = 116 out of 117 CONUS stations possible (stations with missing data excluded – see below)
AVERAGING CALCULATIONS
Average of T_MONTHLY_MEAN Totals = 296.7 / 116 = 2.55775862068965 or 2.6° C Average of T_MONTHLY_AVG Totals = 302.4 / 116 = 2.60689655172414 or 2.6° C Average of T_MONTHLY_MEAN Totals in Fahrenheit = (2.55775862068965 * 1.8) + 32 = 36.6039655172414 or 36.6° F
Average of T_MONTHLY_AVG Totals in Fahrenheit = (2.60689655172414 * 1.8) + 32 = 36.6924137931034 or 36.7° F
SUMMARY National Average of Monthly Mean Temperatures = 2.6° C or 36.6° F National Average of Monthly Average Temperatures = 2.6° C or 36.7° F
EXCLUDED STATIONS The following stations reported no data (-9999.0) for either T_MONTHLY_MEAN or T_MONTHLY_AVG and were not used:
CRNM0101-PA_Avondale_2_N.txt
================================================================
From the NCDC provided FTP data files we can calculate a yearly CONUS Tavg, which has never been done before by NCDC to my knowledge. Odd that is falls to somebody outside of the organization don’t you think?
Climate Reference Network Data for 2012
| Month | Tavg | |
| 1 | 36.8 | |
| 2 | 38.1 | |
| 3 | 50.6 | |
| 4 | 54.8 | |
| 5 | 63.3 | |
| 6 | 70.8 | |
| 7 | 75.6 | |
| 8 | 72.9 | |
| 9 | 65.6 | |
| 10 | 53.9 | |
| 11 | 43.9 | |
| 12 | 36.7 | |
| Sum | 663 | |
| /12 | 55.25 |
Therefore, from this data, the Average Annual Temperature for the Contiguous United States for 2012 is 55.25°F
Note also the value from the CRN from July 2012, 75.6°F far lower than what NCDC reported in the SOTC of 77.6°F and later in the database of 76.93°F as discussed here.
Makes you wonder why NCDC never mentions their new state of the art, well sited climate monitoring network in those press releases, doesn’t it? The CRN has been fully operational since late 2008, and we never here a peep about it in SOTC. Maybe they don’t wish to report adverse results.
I look forward to seeing what NCDC comes up with for the Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) in their “preliminary” State of the Climate Report for Dec 2012 and the year, and what the final number will be in 1-2 months when all the data from the COOP network comes in.
I’ll have more on this in the near future. I’ll be offline for the rest of the day traveling.
UPDATE: 10:30PM PST, Climatebeagle and others have been puzzled over the 117 stations used, and can’t reconcile with the larger list. Here’s the logic:
Some stations, such as the Oak Ridge, TN and Sterling, VA were removed due to them not reporting regularly or at all (they are test sites). The one CRN station in Egbert, Ontario Canada is not part of the CONUS, and is removed also. None of the stations in Alaska are used as they are also not part of the CONUS.
Here is the list: conus_stations_master_list_1-8-13 (PDF)
UPDATE2: 9:30AM PST, 1/8 Reader Lance Wallace noted a mistake, which has to do with versioning control on our end. One CRN station in Egbert Ontario was inadvertently included in the monthly code, where it was not in the daily code we run. We’ll rerun it all and update. I’m thankful for the many eyes of WUWT readers – Anthony
Anthony, I’m not speculating, I’m trying to get to a point to reproduce your results. From the list of WBANNO numbers in your monthly files you seem to include three non-USCRN stations and the Ontario station, while excluding three USCRN stations.
It’s also me trying to understand what exactly is the defined set of USCRN stations and their CONUS subset, in this posting we have three people trying to define that list and each seem to have a different list and probably source for their list. Meanwhile NOAA seems to say that USCRN has 114 stations but list 130, while Mosher says only “around 108” are active.
For a reference network it seems NOAA has already lost control of it.
I just got word that NOAA plans to announce SOTC at 1PM EST today. I got an advance copy. The official Annual CONUS average they state is 55.3°F, which is .05 from my 55.25F CONUS Tavg from CRN.
So much for Mr. Mosher’s complaints about the need for lapse-rate adjustments. I wonder though, how much is any my pre-release might have affected NOAA?
Of course some will claim that means the old surface network is “reliable” since the COOP annual value matches the CRN.
I predict though that the COOP CONUS Tavg will go cooler in a couple of months. In a not too distant future blog post, I’ll show how the networks are different, especially when it comes to UHI. Mr, Mosher won’t like that either, but that’s science.
Let the data be furnished raw. Let scientific investigators perform the studies and argue the value of lapse rate, homogenation, etc. etc. etc., but let the data be furnished raw by these %8**^3^*#!! lest they succumb to the temptation to adulterate the record for ideological advantage, as they apparently already have. The integrity of the NOAA is no longer.
Whether it is absolute temperature or anomaly, it doesn’t matter because both are the same using fixed data points. What we want to see is how the actual data changes, not how adjustments made change the data. A lot of poor adjustments especially with Arctic data are caused by weighting, where just one station can represent 10 percent of the total. Location of one station never reflects the temperature of a whole area 1200km. There is too much weather variance within this size area to call one station reflects it.
1) 10c + 15c + 20c (Station A 1500m, Station B 800m, Station C 100M)
Total 45c, mean = 15c
2) Mean = 15c so this = 0.0c anomaly
Anomaly
-5.0c + 0c + 5c = 0c
0c = 15c so it is the same.
Where this does matter is when the altitudes change for the station location and they are comparing the same location over years with a different altitude. The surface stations do this with no adjustment for it anywhere. It is the reason why higher regions have been replaced with low ones to introduce warming bias not corrected for. The biggest issue I have with anomalies is the way it hides what has been changed when. Absolute values often point out the error, where anomalies aren’t so obvious.
Just plotted it against Central England 2012 and it looks like the USA is about six weeks ahead of the UK.
USA peaks in July and the UK in August. The USA minimum is in December and the UK in February.
Climate Beagle–
Agreed that it is difficult to get a final list. It’s a moving target. The link is to a file on Dropbox, which is my most complete metadata file, obtained from several files at NCDC in about August of 2012. It has 142 sites, including 125 labelled “USCRN” and another 17 in Alabama labelled USCRN-Regional or something like that. The 125 sites include 7 “paired” sites. There are 8 sites in Alaska. 2 in Hawaii, and one in Ontario CN. So to get the “contiguous” US, or CONUS, there would be 125-11 = 114 sites. These match Anthony’s 115 sites exactly with the exception of an extra site that Anthony has in Goodwell OK. This site is described in the recent 10-year review article mentioned above. Apparently it involved a move and some overlapping measurements, so it probably was not available in August 2012. Although now it has a total of about 18 months of data from June of 2011.
Sites are being added in Alaska, so I expect your value of 12 rather than 8 is probably indicative of later additions. But these would have only 1 or 2 years of data or less, so would not be too useful for a while.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x59zbn16ze3qcdq/CRN%20METADATA%20142%20sites%20A.xls
Climate beagle–forgot to include the link to the site that I have used to download the data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01
note to everyone on this thread. we have also updated the station master list in the link above. please also note that close agreement between the CRN and COOP please also note that the CRN is slightly warmer. this occurs every winter season but in the summer the CRN becomes cooler this is an example of the heatsink effect at work . I will have a new write up on this issue with supporting data in a couple of days. for now I think it is safe to conclude that no adjustments are needed for that CRN.
They’ve had to add a new color to their Oz temperature maps.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/08/australia-bush-fires-heatwave-temperature-scale
Claim a sign of coming times due to global warming. The article talks about an average temp for Oz, and it makes me wonder about the quality of their met sites, especially because of what you report here.
Thanks for updating the station master list.
Do you have any additional information on your selection criteria?
From my comment at January 8, 2013 at 7:10 am:
You have included these stations which are not in USCRN:
NM_Santa_Fe_20WNW,03087
CO_Colorado_Springs_23_NW,53007
UT_Blanding_26_SSW,53012
AL_Selma_6_SSE,63897
But excluded these stations which are in USCRN:
NM_Los_Alamos_13_W,03062,USCRN
PA_Avondale_2_N,03761,USCRN
CA_Santa_Barbara_11_W,53152,USCRN
OK_Stillwater_5_WNW,53927,USCRN
PA_Avondale_2_N has missing data for 12/2012 & you stated the reason for omitting that,
but the other three all have data.
My criteria has been the list at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/isis/stationlist.htm?networkid=1
I just found an station metadata excel at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/
That seems to be in sync with the NOAA link, ie. the additional four are the regional network, and the excluded four are USCRN.
Is there a different NOAA source for your station list?
REPLY: Our flags show them as USCRN, but there may be some issue with the definitions in metadata we have vs what you have. They very well might be USRCRN http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/usrcrn/ which is a regional equivalent.
Will look into it when I get back into the office in a couple of days. As we have seen, things change with NOAA rapidly, so we may be victims of versioning differences. -Anthony
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/01/08/record-warm-year-2012/1817841/
“It’s official: 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous USA, scientists from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced Tuesday. The past year smashed the previous record for the warmest year, which was 1998.”
I can almost hear the collective deep breath for the start of the alarm
Does anyone have a plot of yearly averages from the US CRN? If it shows no rise since the network started, shouldn’t we be pointing this out to everyone?
@ur momisugly tomharrisicsc The problem is that the network was only completed in late 2008, and was commissioned and built up slowly from 2002, We don’t have full CONUS coverage prior to 2008, though some stations do go back to 2002
@- Pamela Gray
” Regardless of the cause, small scale weather pattern variation trends cause temperature variation trends at sensor level. But importantly, larger scale oceanic and atmospheric parameters remain in control of resultant weather pattern variation trends. Therefore, to prove or disprove anthropogenic cause, you must look at large scale oceanic and atmospheric parameter trends, not temperature trends. ”
Correct.
Most of the energy in the climate system is in water which with its high thermal capacity and large energy changes with phase changes from solid/liquid/vapor forms is the key dominant component.
The obvious macro scale measures of the energy in the climate system are sea level, ocean heat content, land ice mass balance and atmospheric moisture content.
They reveal how much energy is increasing in the system from the shift from ice to vapor and thermal expansion of the liquid phase.
the implication of the changes seen in these values is obvious.
The confirmation from the NCDC that the CRN shows 2012 was the warmest measured year by 1degF is just the result of the macro scale influence of the oceanic and atmospheric parameter trends.
Good one. Something powerful to link people to when dealing with misleading climate/temperature articles.
I finally got around to calculating the CONUS 2012 average temperature using USCRN hourly readings with a calculated result of 12.99°C or 55.38°F.
That compares to:
NOAA (COOP?) : 12.96°C or 55.32°F. [1]
Anthony USCRN: 55.25°F. [this post]
I know there are two process differences between mine & Anthony’s, which are both using USCRN:
a) Anthony is using the monthly means, I’m averaging the hourly figures.
b) Anthony is using an earlier USCRN list, I’m using the one from Sep 2012 (see earlier comments). Not really sure why the USCRN network is changing its station list at this point in time.
Also, just to note with the hourly figures:
There are over one million records for 115 USCRN stations for a single year.
In 2012 I calculated 0.37% of data was missing, which seemed to be:
0.10% data entries missing from input files
0.27% data entries with missing data values (e.g. -9999.0).
[1] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/ranks.php?periods%5B%5D=ytd¶meter=tmp&year=2012&month=12&state=110&div=0