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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/2014061.gif)
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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screenhunter_1225-jul-22-08-141.gif)
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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_0620141.png?quality=75)
![Screen_shot_2014-07-21_at_11.38.43_PM[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen_shot_2014-07-21_at_11-38-43_pm1.png?quality=75)
![ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd_%281%29[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_ytd_281291.png?quality=75)
![cfsr_t2m_2005[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/cfsr_t2m_20051.png?quality=75)
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]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen_shot_2014-07-16_at_10-47-07_am1.png?quality=75)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
more soylent green! says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:10 am
—————————————-
No; BLS counts everybody not working or minimally working as unemployed. Young, old, whomever. So roughly two people pulling the cart and one in it.
I guess NOAA forgot to mention that YTD (until June) “Temperature: 0.1°F below average – coldest start to year since 1996.” and that “Cool in the East – 13 states had a top 10 cold start to the year.” source :
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/briefings/sotc-briefing-201406.pdf (slide 4)
You can find all monthly climate briefings here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/briefings/
Now I can see clearly why the occurrence of higher than normal (average) altitudes, seems to happen up in the mountainous regions, and when you get to the top of a mountain, you are surrounded mostly by high altitudes.
Weird, ain’t it ??
It’s over that now. 😉 $2.75 I think. Still cheaper than having to drive 30 miles to work.
“””””…..Ed Martin says:
July 28, 2014 at 10:07 am
…………………………………..
Even sadder is green progressives have several women with very large chances of being the next POTUS. Conservatives have only a mention or two of ladies to be VP choices. Nobody else has a woman contender… and it’s getting later in the game all the time. I could be wrong but the next POTUS will probably be a woman…….””””””
And you can bet your bottom dollar, that about ten years from right now, we will have supposedly thinking individuals, pleading:
Well I voted for her in 2016, and I voted to re-elect her in 2020, but I never expected that “this” would happen.
Well it must be good to say, you were a part of history, and helped do something that had never been done before.
But that’s why some folks have a motto:
” Never Again !! “
PS.
Have nothing at all against voting for a Woman POTUS.
I would have voted for the late Dame Margaret Thatcher.
Actually couldn’t have done that; can’t do this either. But y’alls go out and be part of ” herstory”.
Jaakko Kateenkorva says:
July 28, 2014 at 6:01 am
“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. ”
…
Correct, however the 0.03 degree C number is not a measurement, it is an average.
The accuracy is dependent on the number of observations, not on the accuracy of any particular one.
Bill Taylor says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:55 am
” we do NOT have instruments capable of that much accuracy in arriving at a single number and calling it the earths temperature…”
…
I’ll remind you of an old formula from statistics.
.
Standard Error = Standard Deviation / square root (number of obs)
..
As the number of obs increases the SE decreases.
The anomaly is not a temperature reading, it is the result of a statistical caluclation.
James Strom,
‘Things That Flower Index’ was whimsical but the point I would make is serious. Flowering plants have been quite late to flower and there must be some reason for that. I was hoping that other people had taken note of what is happening in their areas.
“‘Things That Flower Index’ was whimsical but the point I would make is serious. ”
I enjoy logging when things bloom around here every year but the ‘Things That Flower Index’ has the same issues as thermometers….namely urban heat island.
In Washington DC, I remember hearing how the cherry trees bloom earlier now that back in the day. But they are seriously affected by the UHI which has grown substantially in Washington, DC.
“Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?”
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines states that “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered without further ado by the word ‘no'”.
@KRJ Pietersen – Back in 68/69 I was selling papers to Marines at Camp Pendleton at the staging area for Vietnam. One day the headline read “Out of Vietnam in 1970?”. I sold out in 10 minutes.
The rest as they say is history.
chuck says: The accuracy is dependent on the number of observations, not on the accuracy of any particular one.
While the accuracy of averaged measurements which have been rounded or truncated to a given precision is complicated, what you say isn’t true in general. Suppose temperature measurements are rounded to the nearest degree, and the actual temperatures are uniformly distributed between 70.5 and 71. How many observations would be required to get within 0.1 degree of the true average of 70.75?
I’m working on a post about USHCN adjustments, that’ll be out soon. I still want to do some sanity checking because it looks so bad. The preliminary numbers I have show that USHCN’s adjustment to 2014 is .07 of a degree higher than the corresponding adjustment for 2010. Now *THAT* is what I call “man-made global warming”.
MJW says:
July 28, 2014 at 2:58 pm
“How many observations would be required to get within 0.1 degree of the true average of 70.75?”
0.1 = (SD) / square root(obs)
square root(obs) = (SD) / 0.1
obs = ( (SD) / 0.1 ) **2
SD = square root ( 71 -70.5) **2 / 12 ) = 0.145
obs = 2.88……rounded to 3
For example…..the three readings could be 70, 71 and 71
The average is 70.666…… which falls into the range of 70.65 thru 70.85
NOAA the VA of climate science.
That’s not what BLS says:
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
Working age does not appear to be a factor*, that is, if somebody is in the 80’s and meets the criteria of unemployed above, they are included. The comment I was responding to included “working age,” a term that does not usually include somebody in their 80’s. So a person can be unemployed and be beyond working age — that we can agree on.
*However, the use of working age in determining who is or is not in the labor force may be a factor used by BLS, I just didn’t find it and I’m not spending more time Googling it. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
The last map has the Arctic all red while the Danish Met has the Arctic below normal for over two months in the Ice web site. Yep, something is fishy.
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.”
ok, first of all… that’s a half truth. They really only provide forecasts for “PERSONS”. Ya know, its a liability thing for those internal to the government. Anyways, i won’t go into detail- it may take all year.
Also, why are both sides of the debate constantly trying to prove themselves with so-called data; when the real issue is the on going manipulation of the atmosphere by private corporations for other corporations.
Whether or not its cooling or warming-there is no debate!!!. Why? because its not mother nature doing the work anymore. Man keeps poking and proding, all the while distracting us from the real truth- CHEMTRAILS. (pardon me for lack of a better term) How come both sides of this debate refuse to talk about CHEMTRAILS/GEO-ENGINEERING? WHY??????
please read the following and focus on the section under INTERPRETATION and the definition of “weather modification activity”
Enjoy
oops here it is.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-5/page-1.html
Increasing the data observations to increase the accuracy:
This requires the measurement of the SAME phenomenon by the same equipment. Even the same temperature station doesn’t measure the same God-created, absolute true-temperature each day. The error of today is not helped by the error of tomorrow.
As each day the temp is different, each event is separate. A thousand measurements of a thousand slightly different temperatures cannot be square-rooted to get an increase in accuracy. This is especially so for the ARGO data: the floats test the temp in different places each time. You are not zeroing in on one phenomenon.
It is like shooting at a moving target to determine it’s shape: you aren’t circling around a stationary, static point, getting by number of shots closer to defining the shape of the thing. Your chances of hitting the thing that’s moving are exactly the same the 100th time as the first (unless you change your technique of leading, which is the same as changing your temperature measurement technique to a better one).
chuck says: For example…..the three readings could be 70, 71 and 71
The average is 70.666…… which falls into the range of 70.65 thru 70.85.
If all the actual temperatures are between 70.5 and 71, and rounded to the nearest degree, all the rounded values will be 71. So the average of the rounded temperatures will be 71 no matter how many observations are made.
chuck you didnt address my point we do NOT have the precision in gathering the information to arrive at the 0.03 accuracy they claim to be able to do…i understand the math involved, but MY point is combined the math margin of error and the CONFOUNDING factors of gathering the temps to be used in the math render the precision claimed as i said NOT possible.
MJW says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:14 pm
” all the rounded to the nearest degree will be 71.”
..
Not true.
If the actual temperature is 70.5, a thermometer accurate to the nearest degree can read this i as 70, 0r 71, and in fact half the time it will read it as 70, and half the time as 71.
Bill Taylor says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:26 pm
“render the precision claimed as i said NOT possible.”
…
Please remember the 0.03 number is not a measurement of a physical quantity. It is the calculated average of a set of numbers. When you calculate an average the denominator has perfect “precision” The sum of the measured quantities has an assumed normal distribution with stated error bounds. The more numbers in that sum, the smaller the error bounds are in the Standard Error.
chuck: Not true.
If the actual temperature is 70.5, a thermometer accurate to the nearest degree can read this as 70, 0r 71, and in fact half the time it will read it as 70, and half the time as 71.
Why must I assume that thermometers that read to the nearest degree randomly select between the lower or higher value in proportion to the distance within that range, so that a temperature of 70.9 would read 70 a tenth of the time? I doubt that any thermometers behave that way, but even if some do, suppose, instead, I have a thermometer that always reads 70 for temperatures less than 70.4, 71 for temperatures greater than 70.6 degrees, and 70 or 71 for temperatures between 70.4 and 70.6 degrees, in proportion to the distance within that range. A thermometer certainly could behave that way, and if it did, my example, modified so the temperatures are between 70.6 and 70.9, would still produce an average of 71 for the temperature readings.
MJW says:
July 28, 2014 at 8:30 pm
..
“Why must I assume …..”
.
Two things.
..
1) The distribution of readings of **most** non discrete measurements follows a normal distribution. The 70 degree reading (for a 70.9 temp) would not be a tenth of the time, as that implies the error of the measurement is uniformly distributed. It is more likely to be less than 1/100th instead of 1/10th.
2) Your example is very poor from another point of view. You would never use a measuring device with a +/- 0.5 degree error bound to measure a 0.5 degree interval. Your results would be meaningless.