Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?

Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Last month was the hottest June since record keeping began in 1880, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Monday. It marked the third month in a row that global temperature reached a record high. According to the NOAA data, April and May were also global record-breakers. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month at 16.22 degrees Celsius, or 0.72 degree Celsius above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees Celsius,’ the NOAA said in its monthly climate report. “This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius.”.

Nine of the ten hottest Junes on record have all occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years, the U.S. agency said.

201406[1]

However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data, with a major cooling of the past and allowance for UHI contamination in recent decades. The all time record highs and days over 90F tell us we have been in a cyclical pattern with 1930s as the warmest decade.

screenhunter_1225-jul-22-08-14[1]

NOAA and NASA (which uses data gathered by NOAA climate center in Asheville) has been commissioned to participate in special climate assessments to support the idealogical and political agenda of the government. From Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

The National Climate Data Center and NASA climate group also control the data that is used to verify these models which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the very least, their decisions and adjustments may be because they really believe in their models and work to find the warming they show – a form of confirmation bias.

Please note: This is not an indictment of all of NOAA where NWS forecasters do a yeoman’s job providing forecasts and warnings for public safety.

NCEP gathers real time data that is used to run the models. When we take the initial analyses that go into the models and compute monthly anomalies, we get very small departures from normal for the 1981 to 2010 base period on a monthly or year to date basis.

ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_062014[1]

Screen_shot_2014-07-21_at_11.38.43_PM[1]

ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd_%281%29[1]

cfsr_t2m_2005[1]

The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data). It needs no adjustments that NOAA claims are required for station and ocean data.

Screen_shot_2014-07-16_at_10.47.07_AM[1]

This government manipulation of data may be simply a follow up to the successful manipulation of other government data that has largely escaped heavy public scrutiny.

Over the last 12 months, the CPI has increased 2.1%. Real inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. The BLS U6 measure, the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force is 12.1%.

CPI is used to adjust social security benefits and military pay and to a large degree as one factor in industry wages. if you are feeling you are falling behind, it is because the real costs of goods and services have risen more than any income or benefits you receive. That is why the GDP actually fell early this year – between the high cost of energy and food, the discretionary income for spending retail and in restaurants fell.

Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.

The sad news is if NOAA keeps providing the government with tainted data to justify its EPA assault on our country’s only reliable energy sources, inflation will skyrocket and unemployment will follow.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
njsnowfan

“Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?”
NO!!

M Courtney

But UHI is real and needs to be accounted for.
There has been warming for half a century so warmer temperatures now are not unexpected.
So, what evidence do you have that the adjustments are politically motivated and not reasonable?
And are you an Australian psychologist based in Bristol?

When the margin of error is taken account of, statistically May was only one of an eight-way tie.
Furthermore, the NCDC global map shows just how little of the Earth’s surface is being measured.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/noaas-hottest-month-claims-are-unscientific/
Such claims are simply unscientific and politically motivated.

Ack

Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.
Line 2 is from a previous paragraph.

Bruce Cobb

Of course we should trust them; they’re the “experts”.

RH

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the people working in the field offices vs. the politically pressured people working in the data centers. I would say fully one third of the day to day forecasters are skeptical of AGW claims, and a majority are at least open minded on the subject.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

A quick glance of the maps and the intense heat seems to linger in sparsely inhabited areas, such as Siberia, Sahara, Himalayas, Alps, Nunavut, Northern Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador, Amazon, Andes, Kalahari, Gobi, open oceans and the poles. Taking UHI and the human CO2 emission sources into consideration it’s paradoxical to say the least. How come CO2 need to travel so far before it starts warming? Or perhaps the problem is elsewhere?

Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
No.

Very poor article – there is plenty of room to be skeptical about statistical adjustments, but saying that NCEP needs no adjustments and equating it to CPI and the U6 numbers (which are by definition cooked) – is just as politically biased as it accuses NOAA figures to be.

John W. Garrett

What does “NCEP” stand for?

Alan Robertson

John W. Garrett says:
July 28, 2014 at 4:00 am
What does “NCEP” stand for?
______________
http://www.ncep.noaa.gov/

“Should you trust NOAA…?”

__ll No!
Yes the weather side of NOAA heroically performs daily, hourly, minute by minute weather service. I still look outside to identify my place in the weather.
However, all of NOAA dealing with climate prognostications under the Gavinator do not appear to be working for the public nor for the good of the public. They do appear to be eager shills for eco and political hacks. There must be a lot of damp shoe leather in that hierarchy.
Otherwise, some stolid honest researcher in NOAA would be blowing a whistle. What is really puzzling is why there is not a group of whistle blowers. Especially as ATF employees are far more honest and ethical than the supposedly pure scientists, scientists who are apparently content to watch years of legitimate research destroyed in the name of eco-fear and tax burdens.

Its been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Using a long-term natural trend to justify a political agenda might have worked if the Alarmists hadn’t hijacked the scientific process to support their catastrophism. History will not be kind to them.

ShrNfr

I still think they should find the SCMAS tapes from Nimbus F and process them. That would bring the sat record back to 1973 or so. SCAMS who flew on Nimbus F was a reasonably good 5 channel instrument and the precursor to the AMSU. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2jAzrIpMIUYJ:nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do%3Fid%3D1975-052A-10+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Perhaps the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) should be changed to “Anthropogenic Adjusted Global Warming” (AAGW). All the warming is now from Man(n) made adjustments.

The Expulsive

Of course you can trust the government…ask the Cherokee

Farmer Gez

Just checked our nearest local BOM weather station for June averages but found that its readings are an amalgam of a site 40 kilometres to the Southeast and another site 100 kilometres to the Northeast in a completely different climate zone. Hardly worth taking the averages for June seriously.

I’m sure that the NOAA numbers are right but they are in Hansen units (Hansens, named after the eminent scientist who discovered a whole new way to measure temperature), not degrees C.

Matt W.

Should I trust the NOAA’s numbers? Maybe not, but I certainly would not trust the shadow government statistics website numbers either. John Williams’ calculations and methodology are more sketchy and secretive than the government, and seem only to exist to scare you into buying a subscription to his premium service.

yam

The TTFI (Things That Flower Index) says otherwise here in southern New York. Flowering is much belated this year.

ossqss

Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, unemployment would be well over 9%.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/nonfarm-payrolls-288000-unemployment.html

I presume that the temperature data gathered by these organizations qualifies as official U.S. government data. If so, is there not a federal law against altering, manipulating or tampering with government data and records in ways that cannot be scientifically or otherwise justified?
If a law (or laws) are being broken here, I guess one is entitled to be exempt from it/them when the data fudging is being done to “save the planet” and wage ware on those “evil” fossil fuels that have made our lives easier and better. Apparently, when you are a CAGW crusader, you are entitled to break the law or have others break the law as long as you are in government.
Isn’t it interesting when the nation’s laws only apply to those of us outside of government?

pochas

Once a scam like this gets started, it’s hard to stop. Too many dependents. Too many political debts. There just is no “Oops!”

I left a similar comment over at Pierre Gosselin’s NoTrickZone a couple of days ago.
Keep in mind that the NCEP CFSR.v2 is a reanalysis (the output of a computer model) and not data. There are few actual measurements of marine air temperature, so the air temperatures 2 meters above the oceans (70% of the surface) are computer-generated estimates in the NCEP CFSR.v2 reanalysis. They may be based on sea surface temperatures, but they are not actual readings of marine air temperature. And we also have to keep in mind that there are numerous other reanalyses. If all of the reanalyses disagreed with the actual global surface temperature data, then the surface temperature data might be suspect. The fact that one reanalysis disagrees with the data doesn’t tell us much of anything.
Off topic: The very preliminary monthly NINO3.4 region SSTa are below the threshold of El Nino conditions and the weekly NINO3.4 data are only +0.08 deg C for last week.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/very-very-preliminary-july-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/
Cheers.

Coach Springer

No way is the anomaly positive for my area, but that’s what the map shows. This is propaganda – and it’s dishonest.

We are now coming up on seven years since I first became aware temperatures were being “adjusted.” It was August 7, 2007. http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
I hit the roof and used several F-words, including the one that rhymes with “odd.” I was told not to be so hot-headed. I actually have learned a lot about keeping my temper, in the last seven years, however my original suspicions seem vindicated.
Over the years I have noticed a phenomenon among those who break certain codes of civilized behavior. They do not do it once and then leave it alone. They return-to-the-scene-of-the-crime and do the same thing, only to a greater degree. (If they took $10.00 the first time, it is $100.00 the second time, and $1000.00 the third time, and so on.) Finally their misbehavior becomes so glaring that even those indulgent people inclined to turn a blind eye simply have to say something. It is almost is the person wants to be caught.
If we haven’t reached that point yet, we’ll reach it this winter when people in New England have their power shut off and are freezing. However for me the dishonesty long ago surpassed the word “flagrant.”

The swede

During JUNE here in Sweden we had colder weather than normal according to the swedish meteorology institute.
http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.37957!w4_juni14.pdf
so Sweden should be blue on the NOAA map but its shown as hotter ( red/pink ) than normal which it absolutely wasn’t . So no , NOAA is not showing an image corresponding with reality.

Jaakko Kateenkorva

“This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius.”
In the real world however, that type of accuracy is very difficult to achieve even for a defined sample in a strictly controlled ISO 17025 laboratory environment. The difficulty is not necessarily due to the instrumentation or calibration, but the surroundings. The temperature varies as a function of time, location, pressure, humidity etc and is messed up by someone opening the door, walking into the room, exhaling etc.
Therefore, declaring accuracy of hundredth of a degree turns into a joke even in those circumstances. Let alone, if the measurand is the whole Earth and the instrument is hovering somewhere well over 300 kilometers away.

John S.

Lake Superior had the longest period of ice cover in the satellite era this summer, and Michigan is shown with above normal temperatures?

JJ

Joseph D’Aleo says,
Nine of the ten hottest Junes on record have all occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years, the U.S. agency said.
201406[1]
However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data, with a major cooling of the past and allowance for UHI contamination in recent decades. The all time record highs and days over 90F tell us we have been in a cyclical pattern with 1930s as the warmest decade.

The first statement is illustrated with a map of global temps for June 2014. The second statement is illustrated by, and appears to refer to, a chart of temps from the US Midwest.
Why the switch between global and US? If you are going to refute a NOAA assertion about global temps, you need to use global temp data.

Keith

Similarly, many people have commented that this year and June – July have been the coolest (well, less hot in the latter case) here in Madrid, Spain, for many years, This is consistent with the ncep maps shown above, and with others I have seen showing cooler than average western areas of Europe. Yet it is showing pink on the NOAA / GHCN chart for June (also above).

Scott

As a sanity check, I zoomed in on the above map for Lake Superior, and in May and June it was running 3 to 4 C behind normal. From another surface temperatures graph:
http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php?lk=s&yr=0
it looks about right, at least for the lakes. Shorelines influenced by the lakes, I’m not sure. Lake Superior temperatures are really lagging at the moment, 10C behind recent years.

May and June in Calgary were pleasant, but not unusually hot,
We had a cold, hard winter, but the central and eastern parts of the continent had much colder weather..
July has in general been nice. Thank God for that.
I still suggest we are heading into a global cooling phase. Hope to be wrong about that…
“Getting old and hate the cold.”

“Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?”
Probably not, with a 95% confidence level, although rounded off to the nearest descriptive (“Hell Yes” on one end to “Hell No” on the other), there is a 97% consensus of “Hell No” based on a non-disclosed method of analysis of blogs discussing NOAA claims.
As a disclaimer, this writer agrees with some of the posters here that the answer is “NO”. I did not accept the “Hell No” reply since I believe that we should keep the Hell out of non-scientific responses.
/grin

latecommer2014

I have lived in the same house in” small town central California ” for thirty years and have kept daily temp and rh numbers. This May and June are defiantly not the warmist I have recorded.
My official weather comes from the local airport site surrounded by concrete runways and is always 2 to 4 deg F than mine. Surface temp as reported by NOAA are NOT accurate or reliable.

Scott

Scott says
July 28 2014 at 6:19am
Sorry I looked at the wrong map, the top NOAA temperature departure map shows Lake Superior only about 1 or 2C below average. They failed my sanity check.

Gary Pearse

Certainly N. America isn’t contributing its share – things are pretty blue this summer:
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/tempcity_nat_640x480.jpg
Here in Ottawa, July feels like September, some days a bit cool for September. At some point, sceptics are going to have to get into the data collection business – Col. Sanders can’t be allowed to continue to look after our chickens. Were getting back extra crispy.

Andrew

“Lake Superior had the longest period of ice cover in the satellite era this summer, and Michigan is shown with above normal temperatures?”
This.
How stupid do they think we are?

Rod Everson

Yes, 41% of the “working age” population is not working. But that calculation includes my mother, who is in her high 80’s, and every other aged retired person in the U.S. who isn’t institutionalized.
The 41% converts into the so-called 90+ million working age Americans who are without a job, an equally senseless metric that has gained popularity only recently. Let’s stick to numbers that make sense. They’re bad enough to make the point that the economy has performed miserably the past five years.

“The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data). It needs no adjustments that NOAA claims are required for station and ocean data.”
I think we would all agree that the poorly sited ground stations need some adjustment. However, if after the adjustments, the result doesn’t agree well with other measuring systems, perhaps either further adjustment or a re-adjustment would be in order.
Maybe even providing the methodologies being used for the adjustments to others for analysis would be helpful.
That is, assuming the purpose is to “get it right”.

BillW

The unemployment numbers reported by the Labor Department are not filtered, in-filled, or otherwise manipulated, and they are not retro-actively adjusted. Furthermore, the calculation methodology has not been changed in decades – the headline number is calculated as follows:
[# of people looking for work] / [# of people working + # of people looking for work].
In the monthly report, the raw number is reported, as well as a seasonally-adjusted number.
Yes. the labor force participation rate has decreased considerably in recent years, and that is an important issue for our economy. But that doesn’t make the reported unemployment number invalid or misleading.
Likewise, the methodologies used by BLS for calculating the various inflation statistics are simple, clearly explained, and reproducible. They also have not changed in a number of years. More importantly, CPI numbers can be checked against other, independently-determined measures of inflation – the GDP deflator for example, to insure that they are unbiased and accurate.
To compare the CPI and unemployment data to the unholy mess made by NOAA, GISS, and other climate agencies is not reasonable or sensible. These agencies have engaged in constant revisions, they conceal or distort their adjustment mechanisms, and importantly, their resulting time series do not compare well to independently-determined temperature measures.
I’m afraid that by bringing in unrelated arguments about which Mr. D’Aleo knows little, he is risking his credibility in discussing those climate and measurement issues in which he is an expert.

Dermot O'Logical

“Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
If you say “No”, then you’re ascribing either incompetence or malice (or possibly both) to the NOAA. All claims of No without clarification need [citation required] tags.
For my part, I haven’t seen an independent review of how the adjustments are made. If no-one qualified has done such a review then I’m leaning to the “No” front on the “malice” track, because not publishing that information means they aren’t doing Science.
References to such a review putting me straight gratefully received.

dp

… total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion

No wonder the record shows it’s warming. They paid enough for it to wiggle its trunk.

ren

The truth is that the heat is pushed to far to the north. Due to changes in ozone (solar activity) during the winter in the north will be reverse swing.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/mspps/np_images/amsua_ts_des.gif

Latitude

How would you know?….
Even NOAA has said the temperature history is crap and has to be adjusted………

dp

If you say “No”, then you’re ascribing either incompetence or malice (or possibly both) to the NOAA. All claims of No without clarification need [citation required] tags.

Trusting NOAA unconditionally is not science. Accept their statement as their best effort but not necessarily correct and then verify it. That is the scientific method, not an example of being judgmental.

Pamela Gray

Without a color signifying average range the data will appear upon presentation to be biased. Any statistician skilled at data presentation will admit that.
A difference of plus or minus .5 from 0 anomaly seems to me to be well worth designating as showing no change. Particularly in light of the unreported but likely large reanalysis error margin.
Just a side note related to my observation of the grids. I sure would like to get my hands on that code. I wonder if the smearing technique smears warmer temperatures further out than it does colder temperatures.

PeterB in Indianapolis

The vast majority of days in June in my area were 10 to 15 degrees (F) BELOW NORMAL (about 5 to 7 degrees C below normal) for the month of June, and yet the NOAA output shows my region as having a positive anomaly.
Ridiculous.

Ed Martin

Ren is very onto something there… gotta say it.

ren

Let’s see vast areas of cloudiness in the south. There arrives a little solar energy.
http://www.sat24.com/image2.ashx?region=world&time=false&index=1