Harold Ambler writes:
NOAA’s map of February temperatures across the United States got New England all wrong. It wasn’t “near normal,” at all, as the people of the region can well attest. Oh, and the data, too: Hartford, CT, as an example was actually 5.1 degrees below normal.
As the map above shows, NOAA seems to have struggled in creating a temperature map that accurately conveys what New Englanders recently experienced: a frigid February. Hartford was 5.1 degrees below normal for the month; Boston was 3.1 degrees below normal. Providence was 4 degrees below normal for the month. And yet all three locations fall within the “near normal” portion of NOAA’s map. What’s up with that?
How well did NOAA do representing February temperatures where you live?
Read more here:
NOAA map of February temperatures less than accurate
Comments have been helpful. Not a true map of anomalies / Fun and games with averages. I cannot see any white v. light blue difference on my screen. But I’m guessing if you had a gradient of 10 shades of blue instead of two, the need for differentiation between lightest blue and white wouldn’t be as critical..
Still looking for a reconciliation of NOAA monthly temps v. reports and personal reports for specific cities like Atlanta and Boston. How do you get a report of several degrees lower for several cities in the same general area and a report for a state in the center of that area of just a degree or less.
NOAA has now necessitated an independent reconstruction. Thanks a bunch for your advocacy. Meanwhile from NASA goes full Ehrlich: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
I posted the following comment on Ambler’s blog, where it lies in moderation. As that blog has been echoed uncritically here, it is also relevant here. My comments about the incompetence demonstrated by Ambler in this case must also apply to Watts, who so uncritically reposted his nonsense:
NOAA provides a clear definition of what is meant by near normal, saying:
That means that for the 120 year record from 1895-2014, any division with a temperature ranking between 41st and 80th of those year years is “near normal”.
NOAA also provides a map showing the actual rankings of each division. Using the example of New England, we find that all divisions in New England, except for one in Connecticut (1st division, ranking 36th), have rankings between 42nd and 70th. They are, therefore, correctly classified by NOAA.
It is an apples to oranges comparison to look at anomalies when trying to rebut claims about rankings. The two will only be approximately related, and can be seen by comparing the map of anomalies to that of rankings from NOAA. It is, at best, astounding laziness to base a post on such an invalid comparison rather than actually comparing rankings. That laziness compounds to outright incompetence (at best) when you do not notice the anomaly you are using is for the 1981-2010 rather than the actual comparison period used in the rankings (1895-2014). (Note: Tamino uses the 1901-2000, the default period for anomalies in map linked above. That is still inaccurate for comparison, but far less so than the period used by Ambler.) For what it is worth, I have only verified the ranking of one New England division (Massachusetts Coastal, ie, the division including Boston)
The compounded errors of Ambler are bad enough. That superficial readings of Ambler are then used to justify vilification of NOAA and its employees shows much about the integrity of those making the accusations, and nothing about that of NOAA. Clearly they would rather vilify on the on checked word of a random blogger than actually check the facts, uncomfortable as those facts are to their world view.
You have to remember that rankings include some very cold periods during the 130-year history. So, when you include the 1880s and the 1960s/70s, what might be considered “normal” using the 30-year average is “much above normal” using 130 years of data. Interestingly, if “normal” continues to be defined as the 30-year average, then we should be seeing more “below normal” as cooling continues.
Weird – so 2 degrees is way above normal but 9 below is just a little below.
http://blogs.woodtv.com/2014/03/19/february-u-s-temperatures/
Other departures: LAN -9.2, Kalamazoo -10.0, Holland -10.8, JXN -9.3, BTL -9.4, DTW -8.7, APN -9.5, HTL -9.4, TVC. -8.5, FWA -10.7 (5th coldest), Fargo ND -10 below normal. Grand Forks -11.6. Aberdeen SD -11 below norm. Rapid City SD -8.6 below. Great Falls MT -12.6.
Compare that to the “MUCH above” area in the SW: Los Angeles +2.6, San Diego +3.3, Las Vegas +4.1, Kingman AZ +3.9, Phoenix +4.7, Yuma +4.4, Sacramento +3.0, San Francisco +2.0.
re: Coach Springer says March 19, 2014 at 5:30 am
… I cannot see any white v. light blue difference on my screen. ..
Geez – was it me or my monitor (a ViewSonic Professional Series P815 CRT-type) late last night; I completely MISSED the fact they used those two different quote colors unquote!!!!
I think it was, is HIGHLY disingenuous of NOAA’s NCDC to make have made color choices for a presentation like this.
But then again, is this not the NCDC, home of Director T. Karl (Thomas Karl? Why is that name familiar? Where have I seen it before?) I wonder if Director Karl can see the ‘shade’ difference during a casual viewing …
(NCDC org chart can be seen on this pdf: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/20140227-NCDC-Organization-Chart.pdf
Do they (the NCDC) not employ AT LEAST ONE graphic artist?
The NCDC grade on this: an obvious FAIL.
.
.
PS. In case any of the usual ‘suspects’ suggests that the image was possibly ‘doctored’ for the head post (or the blog from from where the story originates), SEE THE ORIGINAL IMAGE here on the NCDC website (before it gets Winston Smith’d down the memory hole):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/February-2014-US-Divisional-Temperature-Ranks-Map-460×300.jpg
.
PPS. Winston ‘T Karl’ Smith – was this your work? What are you guys always seemingly trying to HIDE things?
.
What Nick Stokes neglects to mention in pointing us to this announcement.
“NCDC will transition to the nClimDiv dataset on Thursday, March 13, 2014. This is coincident with the release of the February 2014”
Is that the new nClimDiv dataset drops 1895 – 1939 from their data. They just magically erased that annoying and aggravating warming period of the 1930’s with that bit of slight of hand. By declaring a new dataset to compare with they now can make it read better for their purposes.
Ridiculous. Hagerstown, MD is shown “near average”. This (definitely UHI-affected) station shows -3.8F for Feb:
http://i4weather.net/feb14.txt
An explanation:
tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/what-were-up-against/
re: low contrast btw ‘wht’ and ‘lt blue’ colors used on the map
An improved/enhanced contrast map that allows the distinction btw aveage and below average temp areas to be seen (by those like myself with red-green color perception difficulties?):
http://i57.tinypic.com/91mnn9.jpg
.
Map with enhanced contrast and 2x size:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2ues2ug.jpg
or
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ues2ug.jpg
.
re: Leo Geiger says March 19, 2014 at 6:35 am
Can I re-write that to perhaps clarify the intent?
Winston Smith says: Let me emphasize that: what was normal for the 20th century, now seems bitterly cold.
Winston does not seem to (should be said: ” is not paid to “) understand multi-decadal influences of various global factors like ocean currents/temperatures (La Nina, El Nino, the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation et al) on the air masses that affect the few pieces of dry land we live on …
.
.
Further clarity for the novitiate re: Winston Smith A fictional character and the protagonist of George Orwell’s 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four who worked as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth whose job it was to rewrite historical documents such that they matched the constantly changing – and current – ‘party line’.
.
Per org chart ref’d earlier:
. . . Graphics – S. Veasey
FAIL, S. Veasey.
.
In a world where truth is more important than spin, the data would be warped to match the projection. In Arcmap all one needs to do is change the data frame properties and “forget” to reproject the data and space can be warped in amazing ways around the data. If you look at the attribute table, all the data is still there…
There’s a very slick trick going on in that color map. How clever they are. Back in Art School we were taught about color values. Consider a black & white photograph compared to a color photograph of the same item. The black & white photo will show the relative lightness and darkness [i.e. the ‘values’ (tones)] of the items in the photo. Without these values one could not distinguish between the items in the photo. Needless to say, a significant contrast between two items would help to pop them forwards or backwards – to stand out – in the photo. A color photo has the exact same values, however it’s not as easy to observe as in the b & w photo. We were taught to observe this by squinting our eyes (as a near-sighted person I do this all the time) when looking at the color photo. That technique makes the relative values more apparent on the color photo.
Try squinting at the National Obama Agenda Administration (NOAA) map above. The below normal temperature areas, colored in light blue, almost disappear against the normal temperature areas delineated in white. But, the above normal temperatures, colored in yellow, remain quite apparent. While the below and above normal temperature variance is probably identical, the values in which they are represented (and in which we would perceive them to be represented) are not. A graphic designer would know this. We were taught that.
Slick trick.
Tom Curtis says:
March 19, 2014 at 5:30 am
You offer a Red Herring as a defense of NOAA’s map. The technical details of how the map is constructed are not what is at issue here. The outrageous labels on the map are at issue here. If the map can label Southwest Virginia as near normal then it must be rejected. Labeling SW Virginia as near normal is worse than misleading and borders on outright misrepresentation.
What’s up with this? Notice the ‘near average’ temp island nestled within a ‘below average’ area in the state of Louisiana –
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ues2ug.jpg
Interesting how that can ‘happen’ … eh (list this in the category of ‘more fun with numbers/statistics’ no doubt) … notice further on a larger map, the above/below temp anom seems to be computed for some sort of ‘area’ other than just counties, e.g. various NWS forecast areas or zones.
.
the colder days this last winter were not exceptional compared to the coldest days ove3r the last century, in the early part there were colder winters.
it was cold compared to the last thirty years – and peoples’ memories. Perhaps you have to be over 60 to be aware that this cold winter was about average for fifty years ago, but i8s exceptionally cold compared to the last few decades.
those that think this winter was ‘excedptionally’ cold are being misled by the recent rapid warming and insufficiently long memories to noticed the climate shift.
The disparity in NOAAS catagories is because they are comparing to a much longer baseline than the short 30year one used by weathermen and local news.
@izen – when you set multiple cold records, records that date back to the late 19th century, it is a cold winter. It has nothing to do with people’s memory (and I guess you are still a young pup as my memory stretches back almost 60 years, twice your 30 years).
Those of us who correctly note the winter was ‘exceptionally cold’ do so based upon empirical data, not subjective whim. You need to learn the difference.
izen on March 19, 2014 at 8:03 am
You don’t know diddly squat about graphic design do you? Any graphic designer would know what was being done with that map. That temperature map of the Continental US was not rendered in an attempt to inform. When taxpayer dollars are used against the taxpayer by the very government that is supposed to be the servant of the people then something is very amiss. Do you find this acceptable because your standards, like theirs, are blocked from elevation by the impediment of ethics?
My house, in South Carolina, is shown as yellow. Most days in February they were talking on the news about how cold it was. Though there were a few days when it got warm. But there always are.
@- Tom J
“You don’t know diddly squat about graphic design do you? Any graphic designer would know what was being done with that map. That temperature map of the Continental US was not rendered in an attempt to inform.”
I used to do graphic design for web pages, but that is irrelevent. The map portrays accurate information about recent temperatures in comparison to the baseline average. However it uses a looonnng baseline, over a century I think. That is why it seems to conflict with peoples experience, and short memories. Nothing to do with any flaw, intentional or otherwise in the graphics.
The ducks are finding it a bit cold:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1212546/thousands-of-dead-ducks-appearing-all-over-the-great-lakes/
As are humans, from the linked story: “This is unprecedented. Biologists who’ve worked here for 35 years have never seen anything like this,”
izen says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:57 am
You, too, are buying into a Red Herring. The technical details behind the map are not at issue. What is at issue are the labels. Focus on the word ‘labels’. Attaching the label “near normal” to SW Virginia is at best very misleading and probably amounts to outright misrepresentation.
Now, if you want to defend NOAA, address the real issue, namely, the labels.
If this winter in SW Virginia was “near normal,” then everyone who moved here in the last year will most definitely leave. In addition, many of those who have lived here all their lives will most definitely leave.
page488 says:
March 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm
North Central Alabama was super cold, for us.
I’m in the same region….You are correct!!!
Warmist rule no. 8: If the data does not fit your agenda then use only qualitative terms that are not clearly defined, i.e. much above average.
It seems the “S. Veasey” (‘Graphics’ on the DCDC org chart’) is Sara Veasey … an interesting set of links appear when googling her and the acronym IPCC:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sara+Veasey&oq=Sara+Veasey&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%22Sara+Veasey%22+IPCC
More – via publicly accessible Linked In page:
1) Graphics Team Lead – Visual Information Specialist
. . NOAA National Climatic Data Center
. . Government Agency; 10,001+ employees; Govt Administration industry
. . January 2001 – Present (13 years 3 months) Asheville, NC
2) Creative Director
. . The EDI Marketing Group
. . September 1998 – January 2001 (2 years 5 months) Asheville, NC Area
3) Graphic Designer
. . CarePartners
. . Nonprofit; 10,001+ employees; Hospital & Health Care industry
. . 1996 – 1998 (2 years)
– – – – – – – – – – –
Hmmm … looks a little ‘light’ in the ‘graphics’ area …. no doubt she needs some ‘pointers’ in communicating the climate change meme more a little clearly … or maybe not.
(/sarc tag in case it’s needed)
.