The NCDC Goes Ahistorical
Guest post by Ken Meyercord
On March 19th last I sent the following email to Derek Arndt, Chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch at the NCDC:
“I noticed that on the National Climatic Data Center website the National Overview report for February gives the average temperature for the contiguous United States and compares this to the 20th century average, but it doesn’t give the historical ranking of February 2013 (which, as you know, was the 49th warmest).
Looking over the reports for the last year, I found only two times that such a ranking was not given, and in both instances it was a case of the data not supporting the global warming enthusiasts: June 2012, which was the 9th warmest – not that damning except that it is bracketed between rankings of 1, 3, 2, and 1; and October 2012, which ranked 75th warmest. All three omissions appear to me to be signs of politics intruding into the scientific sphere, something, I hope, you are as concerned about as am I, especially with regard to such an important issue. I trust you have a more reassuring explanation for the omission. “
I have been waiting with bated breath to see how the NCDC would handle their report on March (and to receive Mr. Arndt’s explanation!), suspecting it was even cooler historically than February.
Today the NCDC published their report (at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2013/03 ). Sure enough, March was cooler, and once again the NCDC failed to give the historical ranking (which was 77th warmest), noting only that it was “the coolest March since 2002”.
===============================================================
I checked (see below for the last 13 months) some other recent reports to see if Mr. Meyercord’s assertions hold up, these are the first bullet points for the month of each State of the Climate report.
Meyercord’s claim doesn’t always hold up about warmer/colder months, but it does suggest an inconsistent or sloppy reporting process on the part of NCDC. With something so important, you’d think they would have a template for such reports where the same basic data is reported each time to allow for comparisons with previous months.
NCDC would do well to standardize their reporting practices for State of the Climate reports since they are used by the media and by policy makers
– Anthony
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during January was 32.0°F, 1.6°F above the 20th century average, tying with 1958 as the 39th warmest January on record.
- The average contiguous U.S. temperature for December was 36.4°F, 3.4°F above the 20th century long-term average, and the 10th warmest December on record.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during November was 44.1°F, 2.1°F above the 20th century average, tying 2004 as the 20th warmest November on record.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during October was 53.9°F, just 0.3°F below the long-term average, ending a 16-month streak of above-average temperatures for the lower 48 that began in June 2011.
Climate Highlights — September
- The average contiguous U.S. temperature during September was 66.3°F, 1.5°F above the 20th century average, the 18th warmest such month on record. September 2012 marks the 16th consecutive month with above-average temperatures for the Lower 48.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during August was 74.4°F, 1.6°F above the 20th century average, marking the 16th warmest August in a period of record that dates back to 1895.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during June was 71.2°F, which is 2.0°F above the 20th century average. The June temperatures contributed to a record-warm first half of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895. Scorching temperatures during the second half of the month led many cities to set all-time temperature records.
- The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during May was 64.3 degrees F, which is 3.3 degrees F above average — the second warmest May on record
- Warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed much of the contiguous United States during April, and the nationally-averaged temperature was 55.7 degrees F, 3.6 degrees F above average — the third warmest on record. The precipitation averaged across the nation was 2.23 inches, 0.20 inch below average.
- Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. The average temperature of 51.1 degrees F was 8.6 degrees F above the 20th century average for March and 0.5 degrees F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months that have passed since the U.S. record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.
- During February, the contiguous United States experienced above-average temperatures with a national average temperature of 38.3 degrees F. This was 3.6 degrees F above average, making it the 17th warmest February on record.
- The average contiguous U.S. temperature in January was 36.3 degrees F, 5.5 degrees F above the 1901-2000 long-term average — the fourth warmest January on record, and the warmest since 2006. Precipitation, averaged across the nation, was 1.85 inches. This was 0.37 inch below the long-term average, with variability between regions. This monthly analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.
“How about publishing alternative temperature data using the “unbiased monitoring sites” identified by Watts et al?”
Though the Watts paper is dear, please instead encourage them to continue with exactly the same stations. By narrowing themselves to a biased set of “bad” stations, they may have created a false ramp. But there are few new airports expected in the US, and if they’ve already done a good job confirming their biases, then that error mechanism is tapped out.
1. If they keep using the same stations, the step discontinuity will grow increasingly obvious.
2. If they try to hide behind smoothing, the slope will still trend down.
3. If you make them chage the stations, it gives another opportunity to splice old and new. You know how they’ll make choices there, right?
The most ironic moment will be when they claim the decreased air traffic is causing the flat trend, and as soon as the economy picks up the “real trend” will return. Has anyone done an air traffic to surface station temp correlation? Nationally both data sets are available, and air traffic has two big recent changes: October 2001 and March 2008.
William Astley (April 15, 2013 at 8:57 pm): Great post and links. I would only add that the same thermal inertia that we get lectures about at SkepSci applied to CO2 is applicable to the solar slump (lower TSI, lower solar UV, etc). Thus the effects of the recent (2008) solar slump are mostly in our future.
eric1skeptic says…..
I would only add that the same thermal inertia that we get lectures about at SkepSci applied to CO2 is applicable to the solar slump (lower TSI, lower solar UV, etc). Thus the effects of the recent (2008) solar slump are mostly in our future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are mixing whales and eagles.
CO2 is a gas that absorbs and re-emits in the infrared. The Sun has changes in the composition of the total solar irradiance. link
Any effect of CO2 is pretty much limited to the atmosphere while the changes in sunlight effects both the atmosphere and the ocean.
link
link
Stan W. says: @ur momisugly April 15, 2013 at 9:54 pm
What cooling?
There is no cooling (especially in the ocean, where 90+% of the heat goes).
Whatever led you to think the surface could not have a near-zero trend for 10-15 years?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
What lead us to think a near-zero trend for 10-15 years is significant?
The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled ‘The State Of The Climate’ and can be read at
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It says
So, the climate models show “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”.
But, the climate models RULE OUT “(at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”.
H/T to richardscourtney who said that @ur momisugly February 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Why do we think we are looking at cooling ahead?
It is pretty obvious the climate has changed in the last decade or so as the jet stream has gone from zonal to meridional.
There are the solar cycles: the 80 to 90 year Wolf-Gleissberg cycle .(Krivsky 1995, Hoyt and Schatten 1997), a 180 to 200 year cycle (Burroughs 1992) and Stuiver Braziunas (1992) reported oscillations with a period of 416 year. link
There are lunar tide cycles of 1800 years, 179 years, 60 years… that slosh around the oceans.
Worse there are Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change 16C and 8, 10C in dramatically short times and no one really knows WHY.
We are at the half precession point and solar insolation is declining (See NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator: link )
The real climate question is not global warming but if we are headed into glaciation or not, for a synopsis see: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305#comment-7191
or the following WUWT threads:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
Antarctica has the Ozone Hole [even though greatly reduced Freon] which has not closed. Without the Ozone as a protective heat blanket, the outgoing infrared energy moves directly to space.
Energy proxy 10.7cm Flux [average values below]:
1) Flux 70 to 100 -> cooling
2) Flux 100 to 120 -> static
3) Flux 120 up -> warming
Flux at 70 to 80 allows cooling at about -0.1C/2.5 years. This is the normal cooling that occurs during a Sunspot minimum. Flux at 120 up produces warming at +0.1C/2.5 years OR MORE.
We are seeing the Antarctica ice sheets increase since it is the most sensitive due to the Ozone Hole.
In the Northern/Southern Pacific [easiest to see -> http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif ]
One can watch the heat leave the ocean. The current goes from Equator at South America west to Indonesia. It splits and goes North/South to upper/lower central Pacific. The currents then flow back to the Equator at South America via the West Coast of North America and the West Coast of South America.
The upper/lower central Pacific was at +5C. Now it is down to +2C. Note: There is no excess heat in Indonesia; therefore, one can watch the source of the Pacific heat cool.
By the way, these currents are driven by the Trade Winds which are cause by the SUN!!
There is little mystery for why the wording for the monthly updates is chosen to maximize alarm. You need only look at the top of the organizational chart to see what the problem is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/NCDC%20Org%20Chart%202013_0123.pdf
It would be interesting to know when Dr. Karl plans to follow James Hansen into a retirement of blissful green advocacy. The sooner the better.
@Mohib –
Overwhelming scientific consensus regqarding climate change: 31,000+ signers of the Oregon Petition vs. about 70 fanatics in the IPCC and elsewhere pushing the AGW lie. That ain’t exactly the 97 percent majority claimed by the Alarmist-in-Chief. It’s more like 0.22 percent for, 99.78 percent against the AGW hypothesis. Seems to me that latter number is a better measure of where the scientific (as opposed to the leftist) consensus regarding climate change is.
Thumbs!