NOAA/NCDC just published their State of the Climate Report for May 2013, and in it, are some claims about global temperature that look just plain wrong when compared to other global data sets.
They claim:
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2013 tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).
- The global land surface temperature was 1.11°C (2.00°F) above the 20th century average of 11.1°C (52.0°F), also the third warmest May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F), tying with 2003 and 2009 as the fifth warmest May on record.
NOAA says that GHCN has tied for third warmest Global Temperature in 119 years, but that just doesn’t jibe with Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH data.
UAH says 0.07°C for May. Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2013-0-07-deg-c/
The RSS temperature anomaly dataset is also much lower than NCDC is reporting:
Source: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Ocean_v03_3.txt
UAH/RSS measure the lower troposphere, instead of the 2 meter surface temperature as done in GHCN by NCDC, and there usually a lower value for UAH/RSS than NCDC surface data for that reason, but the discrepancy usually isn’t this large.
NCDC’s claim also doesn’t jibe with the WeatherBell 2 meter global temperature reanalysis from Ryan Maue, which shows a anomaly value of -0.024C for the global average.
*Note: 2 meter reanalysis map above is for the entire month of May, with final run on May 31st, 2013. It is not for a single day as some suggest.
Even NASA GISS is lower according to their May monthly combined global data which comes in at +0.56°C compared to NCDC’s claimed value of 0.66°C
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I think one of two things has happened:
1. NCDC may have made some sort of processing error.
2. Due to the circumstantial lateness of the May NOAA SOTC report, this is one of those times where maybe many of the CLIMAT reports are lagging, and they don’t have much of a complete data set. If you watch the numbers after the month they claim, they always change later as more data comes in. Watching the data later may tell us.
One thing is clear, since GISS almost always reads higher than other datasets, including NOAA, and in this case NCDC’s claim is higher than any comparable dataset, it doesn’t seem believable. Perhaps a correction will be forthcoming.
Rex,
maybe you should have studied harder. it didnt take.
>> Steven Mosher says:
>> June 20, 2013 at 10:04 pm
>> Rex,
>> maybe you should have studied harder. it didnt take.
That’s your take on it. Actually, philosophy has not been my major
(pre-)occupation … for 44 years I have been in the business of collecting,
analysing, and interpreting survey data, and my conclusion is that
climate scientists are now challenging public health officials for the
title of …. well, words fail me, but they ‘aint complimentary.
@mosher see inline reply above, you made a mistake on the WeatherBell map.
Anthony Watts says:
June 20, 2013 at 10:51 pm
@mosher see inline reply above, you made a mistake on the WeatherBell map.
I can’t imagine him not noticing the smell from his feet 😛
Pissy Mentalist Syndrome (Waxing half moon, just a few days ago…)?
I so tire of the Menne et al. homogenization effort showing UP time after time after time. Soon, we will have to just use crops and plants to find what the temperature is outside.
Come on Mosh, stop beating on Rex for no good reason and dazzle us on how are we using data product NCEP CFSv2 wrong…
I saw that in M. Mann’s twitter feed yesterday (he triumphantly tagged it #WarmingContinues) and immediately thought that it must be wrong. It will be interesting to see what happens when more data arrives.
Do NDCD hold the record for false records?
I think that Anthony’s post has a bit of a bad wording that’s creating the confusion for Mosher and can be misinterpreted by someone with ill will like Tamino. It’s not the anomaly numbers for NCDC in comparison with UAH, RSS and GISS, but the change from April that is important. Both UAH and RSS have a decline, UAH minuscule (0,10->0,8) and RSS quite big one (0,219->0,139), GISS has a small rise (0,51->0,56), but NCDC has a big jump (0,5209->0,6603). I’m sure that’s what was meant. But Mosher’s point for seeing whether this difference is statistically and historically anomalous (I think it’s not) is still valid…
The Central England May was the 37th coldest out of 136 years.
I think that climate sciences inability to be able to ‘cross calibrate’ the satellite to the thermometer record, given that they are supposed to measuring the same source after all, is the elephant in the room.
GISS almost always reads higher than other dataset, otherwise know has the Hansen effect
Proposal – Forced Cross Calibration of Global temperature data series
It should be possible to force the various Global temperature data sources into alignment simply by adjusting their offsets and scales to determine a best fit over their whole overlap period, 1979 to today. They are supposed to be reporting the same thing after all, average global temperature as measured/estimated by them over that whole period of time. Using the corrective parameters derived from the above step, we can then back project/cross calibrate the thermometer data to create a satellite referenced temperature data series backwards in time, beyond the overlap period and out to the end of the thermometer record. An overlap period of 34 years for the records so far should be sufficient for reasonable accuracy in the parameter choices.
Methodology
Align OLS trends in the sources by using offset and scale factors (currently by trial and error). Using OLS trends over the whole period to determine parameter choice allows for the likely best fit, given the relatively short overlap time period. Also OLS trends have no implicit reference points so are ‘floating’ in this regard thus making them more amenable to cross calibration of this type.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/trend/from:1979/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/offset:0.1/trend/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/trend
• BEST
Offset: -0.4
Scale: 0.5
• HADCrut4 Global mean
Offset: -0.16
Scale: 0.86
• RSS – No adjustment
• UAH
Offset: 0.1
Apply the cross calibration data so obtained to the thermometer based data sources backwards in time to obtain a satellite cross referenced temperature series.
Output
Satellite referenced Historical Global temperature data series output
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/plot/rss/plot/uah/offset:0.1
Uncorrected OLS trends
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend
Poor Chris above must have been living in the deep forest over the past year. Chicago politics is showing up everywhere…the IRS, the Justice Department, the State Department and of course the EPA and now NOAA. And now he wants to blame everything on poor Ben and the Chinese debt problems. You must have been watching Larry Kudlow.
RichardLH says: June 21, 2013 at 3:17 am
“Proposal – Forced Cross Calibration of Global temperature data series
It should be possible to force the various Global temperature data sources into alignment simply by adjusting their offsets and scales to determine a best fit over their whole overlap period, 1979 to today.”
You can just set them to a common anomaly period. I keep up a plot of recent indices on that basis here, for last 5 months and last 48 months.
In fact the surface indices are just a bit above where they were in February, and NOAA has not increased greatly from then. The difference is that it went down until April, then jumped back. The TLT indices have gone down continuously since Feb.
Nick Stokes says:
June 21, 2013 at 5:38 am
“RichardLH says: June 21, 2013 at 3:17 am
“Proposal – Forced Cross Calibration of Global temperature data series
It should be possible to force the various Global temperature data sources into alignment simply by adjusting their offsets and scales to determine a best fit over their whole overlap period, 1979 to today.”
You can just set them to a common anomaly period. I keep up a plot of recent indices on that basis here, for last 5 months and last 48 months.”
This was using the whole overlap period (the best data?) to provide the parameters rather than a sub-set.
And a ‘more likely to be accurate’ 🙂 presentation of historic temperature. Sort of reverse hockey stick.
Processing Steps
1. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/uah/plot/rss
2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend
3. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/trend/from:1979/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/offset:0.1/trend/plot/best/from:1979/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/trend
4. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/plot/rss/plot/uah/offset:0.1
In October 2009 no one seemed to mind that the UAH record for September anomalies had been broken by nearly 0.1C, after a 0.2C jump from the previous month, while GISS showed a paltry change of 0.04C between August and September and not a record-breaker.
There are largish differences (0.2 – 0.3C), between all data sets for neighbouring months from time to time, opposite in sign, and no need to reckon baselines. Even between RSS and UAH. 3rd highest anomaly for May NCDC? Storm in a teacup.
Year by year? The anomalies are well correlated, but UAH and RSS, as we know, have greater variability, especially month by month.
The differences in trend for the full period (from 1979) are pretty small – in the order of 3 hundredths of a degree per decade between NCDC, RSS, UAH, GISSHadCRUt3 and HadCRUt4. That’s < 0.3C/century difference. Is it really worth quibbling over?
The data is cooked by the Climate Liars to make it appear the planet is warming up. Reality is not cooperating with their silly climate models so they make things up. It’s fraud !
The global warming zealots will do and say anything to enact their political agenda. Please stop believing we are dealing with reasonable, sensible, moral people. We aren’t.
And whilst you are at it – why do these low frequency components of the various signal sources differ during the times they do?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/offset:-0.4/scale:0.5/mean:9/mean:12/mean:16/plot/hadcrut4gl/offset:-0.16/scale:0.86/mean:9/mean:12/mean:16/plot/rss/mean:9/mean:12/mean:16/plot/uah/offset:0.1/mean:9/mean:12/mean:16
I note that NCDC notes:
“Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed.”
Why even release preliminary information?
This isn’t the “State of the Climate” at all if it is based on incomplete data? Wait, and get it as accurate as can be, then make a “State of the Climate” declaration.
This is the best we get from NASA/NCDC? Shameful.
Becase data can take months, even years to come in. A substantial number of stations report speedily, many around the world do not. The changes brought about by the inclusion of stations is not massive, so they give preliminary values within a month. Otherwise we could wait til 2015 for the 2013 May state of the climate. The caveat is all we need. We can always assess later if necessary.
“JohnWho says:es in
June 21, 2013 at 7:54 am
I note that NCDC notes:
“Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed.”
Why even release preliminary information?”
well for one reason folks here have complained about delays in releasing data as it comes in.
damned if they do. damned if they dont.
“Sven says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:22 am
I think that Anthony’s post has a bit of a bad wording that’s creating the confusion for Mosher and can be misinterpreted by someone with ill will like Tamino. It’s not the anomaly numbers alfor NCDC in comparison with UAH, RSS and GISS, but the change from April that is important. Both UAH and RSS have a decline, UAH minuscule (0,10->0,8) and RSS quite big one (0,219->0,139), GISS has a small rise (0,51->0,56), but NCDC has a big jump (0,5209->0,6603). I’m sure that’s what was meant. But Mosher’s point for seeing whether this difference is statistically and historically anomalous (I think it’s not) is still valid…”
###########
of course it is valid.
Is the jump Big? well, you can’t tell if its big unless you actually do the math and unless you actually wait for final data.
But folks on both sides want to make headlines and make issues where there are no real issues.
If you find something wrong with a monthly number chances are you made a mistake.
rgbatduke says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:18 pm
June hasn’t been particularly hot either, Gail. It’s 77F outside in Durham at the moment — downright cool for late June. The high for the WEEK in Durham is forecast to be only 86F. Again, most years I would expect it to be near 90 every day by this time. The low temperatures are even more remarkable — it is supposed to go down to 59 tonight….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It hit 56F this morning and I am ~ 40 miles due south of you. BRRRRrrrrr (What A/C? I have had the darn blankets on.)