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
If you are going to write a blog on how unbelievable the NOAA rankings map is, you have an obligation to find that data. It isn’t that hard. You go to NOAA’s home page, click on “Climate Information”, then “Climate of the US”, then “Climate at a Glance”. By default, that brings you to the time series page, which shows the data as both a graph and a table. You can then press on maping to see the data for a single month or year laid out on a map of the contiguous USA. It took me less than 15 minutes to find, and I was not even writing a blog.
Calm down. First off, I’m not “writing a blog.” I commented on a blog. I looked for information using Google. I’ve long had trouble easily finding weather data. Thanks for the link you provided. I’ve bookmarked it.
The NWS figures use a 1981-2010 baseline. In the case of the Massachusetts coastal division, that increases the anomaly figures by 2.7 F relative to the 1901-2000 baseline used on the Climate at a Glance map. That is, in the Massachusetts coastal division, February temperatures from 1981-2010 averaged 2.7 F greater than they did over the period 1901-2000. That makes the temperatures seem much colder to us, with our recent perspective than they actually are compared to the centenial average, let alone the 1895-2014 interval used for the rankings. For comparison, the anomalies are:
1981-2010: -2.3 F
1901-2000: 0.4 F
1895-2014: 0.2 F
I don’t think anybody would be inclined to argue that a temperature 0.2 F greater than the mean is not “near average”. Our perspective is distorted, however, from recent (1981-2010) warm temperatures.
I didn’t know that the NWS baseline was different than the Climate at a Glance baseline, and it wasn’t readily apparent. I completely agree about not arguing over 0.2 degrees being near normal.
The North East probably does have more climate variability than the South West, in that climate variability, on average, increases as you move away from the equator towards the poles. The NOAA map does not show that, however. Rather it shows that the South West was warm this year while the North East was cool relative to recent experience. The US is a big place, and does not have the same weather everywhere.
You don’t have to be quite so condescending about the U.S. being a big country. And, so you know, I haven’t questioned the actual temperature data, only the presentation. I didn’t use any invective. I am actually quite disinclined to see malfeasance or conspiracy at the data gathering level. If I didn’t adequately communicate that before, I hope I have now.
Tom Curtis says March 19, 2014 at 5:03 pm
jim, I took the colour blindness test you linked to. The result: “normal answers: 31/31″. So, I would hazard a guess that just as in my youth, I am not colour blind.
Very good. You realize, of course, that represents a poor first-level ‘screening’ for color blindness. A check with an ophthalmologist (or suitable designee trained in color testing) would be conclusive (as they will have the proper ‘color plates’ used to properly perform a diagnoses.)
You should be further informed of a fact, such as the RGB makeup of the lt blue and so-called ‘white’ colors as determines by the “ImageJ” image editing/metrics program:
Lt blue = 222, 243,255 and White = 247,247,247
As you can see, there isn’t a substantial difference in the red and green values. These are the particular colors I have trouble with (the cones I have do not seem to differentiate or respond properly to these wavelengths.) You will notice and enhanced (and enlarged) map conveys the intention behind the map much better than the feeble attempt put forth by the ‘professionals’ at the NCDC.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ues2ug.jpg
It is even more arrogant of you to assume that the choice of colour was “artfull”
I said this was an aside; others are contending it was on purpose and I label it as an ‘artful’ deceit, if indeed that was the intent, to provide barely recognizable differences between those two levels. PS – One ‘L” in artful.
On the last point, I saw it as simple ‘blasting’ those who could not see the difference on their monitors, and moreso to the exclusion of any possible, plausible factors. I hope you seriously consider this aspect in the future when discussions of this nature arise. As to providing a listed ‘ranking’, this is a far cry from meeting the intent of the ADA act and/or the various requirements various US govt agencies have regarding this issue (see for instance the EPA guidelines I linked above) for their websites and material.
.
Jake J, my criticism has been directed in two ways. I have heavily criticized Ambler, and to a lesser extent A Watts who are writing blogs, and should have done the research. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who has published a peer reviewed article on USHCN temperatures. He at least should know about baselines and that an anomaly from a recent 30 year baseline is not a good guide to rankings, which of necessity cover the 120 years of data. Indeed, given his professional background that comes under a minimum level of competence. Ambler presents himself as a journalist, with a significant interest in climate, and should likewise have that basic knowledge, and at minimum should have done the research. It took me 15 minutes. Is that too much to ask before researching a blog? If it is, he needs to subtitle his blog as “Ill informed ramblings” so people will know what they will get.
I have secondarily criticized those readers who have jumped to a conclusion of malfeasance by NOAA based on Ambler’s (as it turns out) ill informed ramblings. When a person indicates that there is a potential error in an experts work, it must at least occur to casual readers that it is the non-expert blogger rather than the professionals they are criticizing who have made the mistake. If it occurs to them, then why have they accepted Ambler’s implied criticisms without double checking? And if they have double checked even casually, why have they not noticed that Ambler is criticizing a map of rankings based on anomalies? Or not actually checked the rankings?
If you do not fall into either of those two categories, I have not criticized you. I have only rebutted your false claim that it was difficult to find the relevant data.
Finally, I was not being condescending with my comment about the size of the US. I was drawing a connection between an obvious fact and its corollary so that you could understand the point from implicit reasoning rather than simply from my assertion.
jim, your picture is indeed clearer, but does not provide room on the colour scale for “record warmest” and “record coldest”. If you can show me a seven value colour scale such that, each value is equally spaced from adjacent values in terms of colour, and it uses the intuitive red=hot, blue=cold axis for temperatures, and which also avoids problems for those who are colour blind, or have less than perfect monitors, then I will accept that your scheme is better than that of the professionals, and quite happily write to NOAA recommending they adopt it. As it is, it is always easy to ‘solve’ problems by ignoring design requirements (thus setting up other problems).
RE: Leo Geiger says:
March 19, 2014 at 6:35 am
I was born in Boston and have lived in New England for most of my 61 years. I have worked jobs outdoors more than jobs indoors. In my opinion this winter is one of the five worst. For you to swallow Tamino’s explanation, “Because recent Februarys have been so hot, it seemed bitterly cold compared to what people have gotten used to over the last three decades or so,” dismisses my first-hand experience. I find Tamino disrespectful, and you gullible.
One thing that has occurred in the east is that the rushes of warm air up the coast often have lasted a matter of hours, while the cold has lasted days. Temperature charts seem utterly incapable of making this distinction. If a daily maximum only covers a brief period of a day, while the cold covers a prolonged period of the same day, the warm reading still gets the same weight as the cold period, when it comes to computing that day’s mean. If a low’s warm sector pushes in at 11:00 PM and leaves at 1:00 AM, a warmth lasting two hours can weigh as much as 46 hours of cold
Because the thermometers are six feet off the ground, they cannot measure how little effect the hurrying warm sectors often had, this past winter. The snow on the ground didn’t even get sticky enough to make a snowball, yet the day’s high temperature still stands on charts as being above freezing, and the mean is greatly effected by that ineffectual warmth.
This past winter was not striking in terms of record setting cold. I can remember winters when temperatures dipped below minus-20, and this winter only touched minus-ten. However what was striking about this winter was how unrelenting the cold was.
Sometimes I get weary of people who do not go outdoors, and who have no first-hand experience of what a location has experienced, looking at computer readouts indoors and adopting a condescending tone, when speaking to local people who have been out in the cold.
Very good point; these periods ought to be integrated (heating degree hours?) so as to arrive at a more representative climate ‘figure’ or indicator. We have seen these ‘brief’ warm-ups too, then the cold poured back in again and along with overcast sky conditions we were in the ‘deep freeze’ for another period again. As I posted earlier above, the first 11 days in February for us were overcast sky conditions. Normally the cold fronts (for us) will clear the overcast skies, but a number of these cold air intrusions were so cold and dense, they didn’t extend very high up and we had freezing precip and overcast vs the usual ‘clearing skies’ …
.
We have become so candy bottomed that utterly normal weather tickles the gizzards of mikee and Izen such that they have gut feelings that the climate is under the influence of a performance enhancing gas.
Never mind the lack of a plausible mechanism, colors will be shaded, projections will be stretched, data will be revised. If you don’t realize spin is in motion, you simply aren’t paying attention.
Both sides of the debate are guilty of this. The cold in the east and the drought in the west this year are utterly unremarkable in the big picture. One side fixates on one, the other side the other.
Whaay, this weather is EXTREME!
Caleb, Accuweather has the Boston daily maximum and minimum temperatures of February, 2014. The mean of all daily maximum and minimum temperatures was 29 F, ie, the same as the mean temperature given by NWS for Boston, confirming that they are using the same data set. The anomaly of minimum temperatures relative to “historical averages” is -2.4 F, the same as the anomaly relative to 1981-2010 given by NWS of -2.4 F. The anomaly of minimum temperatures relative to “historical averages” is -3.1 F, which is the same as that given by NWS. That tells us that the historical averages given by Accuweather are the mean values for 1981-2010.
I note that, the mean Hi temperature anomaly was smaller (more negative than) the mean low temperature anomaly. Twenty days had hi temperatures less than the February average hi temperature, whereas only seventeen days had lo temperatures below the February average. Of the seventeen days with a lo temperature below the historical average, only five also had a hi temperature above freezing. These facts do not sit well with your explanation of why the recorded temperature was not as low as you would like to imagine it. The lower hi temperature anomaly and more low hi temperature days suggests strongly that it was not a case of very low minimum temperatures mitigated by aberrant high temperature readings. Rather, it suggests low high temperatures had greater impact in reducing the overall low monthly average. Further, the infrequent hi temperatures above freezing on days with unusually cold minimums (for the last thirty years) suggests your anecdotal evidence of a snow ball free Boston really only applies to a few days, not the entire month – and that the temperature records agree with you anecdotal evidence on those days.
Anecdotal evidence is among the worst possible forms of scientific evidence. So much so that many scientists will not admit it as scientific evidence at all. Humans bodies are poor measurers of temperature, and even poorer comparers of temperature across time. Many of us have the experience of going back to a place we have not visited since we were young, and being astounded by how small everything is. That gives a feeling of how poorly we compare things across time when we must use only our own senses as yardsticks. It is also a very apt analogy, as it is well known that people feel cold more with age so that personal yardsticks are biased to thinking past times are warmer – just as they are biased to thinking everything large when we are young. In addition to such biases, we also inflate significance, forget days that aren’t that unusual and, in general find every way we can to fool ourselves. That is not dissing you. That is just the nature of anecdotal evidence.
However, I do have to admit I disrespect you, just as I have no respect for anyone foolish enough to think their individual anecdotal evidence trumps instrumental measurements with careful record keeping as a source of scientific information.
@ur momisugly Tom Curtis,
I agree with you whole heatedly. We should be using centennial baselines when giving temperature means whenever possible. However, GISS, and NOAA use 30 baselines. I wonder how many of the unprecedented warm records would be filtered out with a 100 year mean? The alarmists seem to wish to have it both ways. It’s this constant changing of the goal posts that infuriates so many skeptics. I wonder if NOAA used 1976-2005 as a mean how much of their trend analysis would go down to toilet. Not that I would recommend this period – as it is anomalously warm. Using that period would give people an incorrect picture. But, that is my point.
JP, neither trends nor records are affected by choice of baseline. Changing the choice of baseline only changes anomaly values, not their relative position or difference from each other.
Absolutely does not surprise me. On one particularily cold morning here in Montana, my household thermometer read -20 f, my car read -20 f, the bank read -20 f, NOAA reported -8 f. I am a scientist by profession. I appreciate that thermometers vary, but by 1-2 degrees, not 12.