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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
194 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MJW
July 28, 2014 9:52 pm

chuck says: 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.
If you agree that the error of the measurement isn’t uniformly distributed, then I think you are acknowledging that the expected value of the average of the temperature readings isn’t necessarily the mean of the actual temperatures. Suppose, in your example where 1/100th of the 70.9 read 70, that all the temperatures are 70.9. Ignoring the possibility of readings of 72, the expected value of the measurement average is 70.99 while the mean temperature is 70.9. Including the 72 readings slightly raises the expected average, making it even less accurate. No increase in observations allows the true mean temperature to be measured to within 0.01 degrees.

wayne
July 28, 2014 11:34 pm

“However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data….”
Precisely!
Thank you for keeping that little inconvenient reality alive for all to see with their own eyes… if they will just uncover them.
Here also is a plot of the latest accepted dataset after removing the +0.75 °C/cy (0.000625 °C/mo) artificial adjustment creep from that dataset starting in 1940. (small deviances from linear were ignored but make little difference in the overall graph)
http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png or with less smoothing http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png.
Approximated from these adjust plots: USHCN: http://i43.tinypic.com/s3m3wk.png, GISS: http://i39.tinypic.com/1zfrn1l.png, NOAA: http://i40.tinypic.com/2uy2bg4.png
Sure opened up my eyes, not exact but close enough.

Rod Everson
July 29, 2014 6:51 am

more soylent green! says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:10 am
The working age is generally considered to be ages 20-65. Unless you’re making up your own definitions or you unintentionally misstated your mother’s age, then your mother is well past the working age.

The 59% figure is defined as Total Employed/Population over the Age of 16 (although I believe institutionalized people are omitted). In other words, my 80+ year old mother is included in the 41% not working. (I don’t want to try adding a link to this, but googling “employment-population ratio” will get you to the source.)
The author of the article converted the statistic into “working age” Americans. It’s not. It’s total employed divided by everyone over 16. And that’s exactly where the 90+ million Americans not working comes from also. Both numbers are crap, or at least the way they’re being used is crap. They sound cool though, when you’re trying to make the case that the economy is really, really, in bad shape.
Ironically, it’s pretty easy to make that case without using bogus numbers to do it, but these numbers, and particularly the 90+ million number, keep cropping up all over the place, and are being misinterpreted every time they show up.
The way to make the 59% a somewhat more relevant economic statistic is to point out that it was over 63% during the Bush administration, and over 64% during the Clinton administration, although it’s going to trend lower over time due to the huge number of baby boomers leaving the work force now.

yam
July 29, 2014 8:23 am

Mary Brown: “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.”
I’m from NYC so I can appreciate UHI. I’m not there now so more natural settings become more interesting.

July 29, 2014 8:44 am

chuck, i can do MATH and clearly understand what is being done far better than YOU……the math is CORRECT but the answer it yields is FALSE because the numbers the math being done on are NOT accurate to the precision required……….2 plus 2 equals 4….but if i had 3 and 2 factors to be considered then clearly the math is correct in the case of 2 plus 2 but that one of the factors being a 2 is WRONG…….
folks take this any way you desire but far too many folks of average intelligence talk DOWN to people about things they dont even understand.

July 29, 2014 8:49 am

put another way you can have a million numerical factors at play and do countless ACCURATE math calculations using only those million factors and all of the math be 100% accurate, BUT IF half of the factors were gathered wrongly and DONT represent what it is said they do, again the math is correct but the claims are WRONG because of improper gathering of the factors.

Ed Martin
July 29, 2014 9:45 am
July 29, 2014 10:31 am

using ONE thermometer for ONE location how does one arrive at a single number and call it the temperature for the day? using 24 hourly readings and taking an average? confounder = within each hour CLOUDS can make a huge difference, rain can make a huge difference, reading taken before the rain is warmer than reading after the rain so which is correct for that hour?
my point is even arriving at a single number and calling it “the” temperature for that day at that location cant be done to a precise level………that same thing applies to each location………as i have said YES mathematicians can arrive at a number using the readings they are given but to say that is the single global temperature within accuracy of hundredths of a degree is pure and total BS.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Bill Taylor
July 29, 2014 10:50 am

“but to say that is the single global temperature within accuracy of hundredths of a degree is pure and total BS.”
That is demonstrated by the fact that the four main temp indexes (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS) differ by quite a bit each month in raw value and change from the previous month.
However, with many different ways of measuring and many different indexes, we can get a pretty good idea of where temperature has trended. Since about 2000, the answer is nowhere.

chuck
July 29, 2014 11:26 am

Bill Taylor says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:31 am
” using ONE thermometer for ONE location how does one arrive at a single number and call it the temperature for the day?”

You can do it several different ways.
1) take the average of the high and low for the day.
2) take readings every hour and average the result
3) take readings every 15 minutes and average the result
4) take readings every 2 minutes and average the result
5) take readings ever 15 seconds and average the result
6) take readings every second and average the result
…..

Note that 2 is more accurate than 1
Note that 3 is more accurate than 2
Note that 4 is more accurate than 3
Note that 5 is more accurate than 4
and finally
6 is the most accurate.

This type of reasoning is basic to someone that is enrolled in their first class in Calculus, where they teach you about limits and the process of integration (which is the opposite of differentiation)
Now….
Go back to my original post where I said that increasing the number of observations gets you more accuracy.

chuck
July 29, 2014 11:42 am

Mary Brown says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:50 am
““but to say that is the single global temperature within accuracy of hundredths of a degree is pure and total BS.”

Go to Dr Roy Spencer’s website
..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
….
And send him an email to tell him that his graph is “total BS”
(his email address is at the bottom of the page)

Mary Brown
Reply to  chuck
July 29, 2014 12:23 pm

The “total BS” part of the quote comes from “Bill Taylor” not me.
My point is that each of the four main global temperature measurements vary quite a bit from each other.
Here are recent one year changes for 2013 from start to finish of the four main indexes…..
+.07 deg C
-.28
-.34
-.02
The difference between highest and lowest was .41 deg C. This certainly suggests that the error of measurement is greater than hundredths of a degree…more like tenths of a degree.

July 29, 2014 12:25 pm

i assure you chuck IF i had the chance to discuss this with Mr. Spencer he would agree with me…….

chuck
July 29, 2014 12:27 pm

Mary Brown says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:23 pm
I’m sorry, I must have misrepresented what you posted right after that quote.
“That is demonstrated by the fact……”

July 29, 2014 12:27 pm

chuck i NEVER disagreed that using more info lessen error margin……AGAIN my point is in the gathering of the info NOT the math after it has been gathered…..seems having said that a few times now it may sink in…..

July 29, 2014 12:30 pm

exactly Mary, the differing numbers in the 4 data sets DEMONSTRATE my point is correct by actual observation(SCIENCE).

chuck
July 29, 2014 12:30 pm

Bill Taylor says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:25 pm
“Mr. Spencer he would agree with me…….”

I don’t think Dr. Spencer is going to remove the graph on his website, the one that graphs the anomaly to 0.01 degree C

chuck
July 29, 2014 12:41 pm

Bill Taylor says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm
” exactly Mary, the differing numbers in the 4 data sets DEMONSTRATE my point is correct by actual observation(SCIENCE).”

Different thermometers give different readings even when they all are in the same place.

Mary Brown
July 29, 2014 12:58 pm

The observational differences I pointed out are changes in anomalies over a period of time in a consistent data set. They should have much lower errors than any single thermometer due to the large sample size and consistency of measurement. Yet, the variance from one to another in a single year is roughly the same as THE ENTIRE HUMAN-CAUSED CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING IN ALL OF HISTORY (perhaps 0.5 deg C)
Noise ~= signal

chuck
July 29, 2014 1:18 pm

Mary Brown says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:58 pm
“They should have much lower errors”
Are you confusing differences BETWEEN indexes with errors?

You do realize that all four indexes have different instrumentation, different coverage and different methodologies?

Mary Brown
Reply to  chuck
July 29, 2014 1:29 pm

“You do realize that all four indexes have different instrumentation, different coverage and different methodologies?”
Yes, but they are all trying to come up with a global temperature anomaly. If it was easy to do, they would all vary by similar amounts from month to month. The fact that they don’t suggests considerable uncertainty in global temperatures.
I like to use the WoodForTrees Index (WFTI). It is a composite of all four main temp indexes. So, I think it has lower error and less bias than any other individual index and is the most representative of actual global temp changes.
A few weeks ago, i was arguing with somebody who tried to convince me runaway warming was still happening because of the 0.02 deg rise in ARGO deep ocean heat. That is laughably less than the error of measurement but there are those who argue that the ARGO errors are less than 0.01 deg C … mainly because there are ~3000 floats.

July 29, 2014 1:41 pm

Mary, it seems chuck is saying the math is correct, i agree it is and expect you would also, but what you and i are pointing out is the factors used in the math have LARGE error margins, and chuck agrees they uses different info and methods…….those differing methods are where the errors ARE and any math done with erroneous factors will always give an erroneous answer even though the math done was correct…..you sens someone out to count the chickens in each pen and they come back saying there are 5 in each pen and you have 5 pens so that is 25 chickens total, BUT there were 6 chickens in one pen and 4 chickens in 2 other pens……..and to apply that silly analogy to the temperature you need 1000 pens that are interconnected and the chickens constantly moving from one pen to another in all directionsand more chickens being born every second and some dying every few seconds……..but chuck still says one guy can go count those chickens with no errors at all.
chuck in summary you CANT possibly hit infinite moving targets with ONE bullet….your one bullet being the math you apply to the info you’ve been given.

July 29, 2014 1:48 pm

chuck says:
I don’t think Dr. Spencer is going to remove the graph on his website, the one that graphs the anomaly to 0.01 degree C
And I don’t think he will remove his chart of atmospheric CO2:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
See the CO2? No? Well then, maybe you can see it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
See the CO2? NO?? OK, let’s try again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif
There. See it? Now, are you worried? I’m not.
Also, Dr Spencer has written, “The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.”
That means there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening; everything currently being observed has happened in the past, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower.
So tell us: what can you post that is worth worrying about?

Steve from Rockwood
July 29, 2014 5:59 pm

more soylent green! says:
July 28, 2014 at 11:10 am

Rod Everson says:
July 28, 2014 at 6:32 am
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 working age is generally considered to be ages 20-65. Unless you’re making up your own definitions or you unintentionally misstated your mother’s age, then your mother is well past the working age.

The 41% seems to reference “those Americans not in the labor force” aged 16 and older, not the “working age” population 20 to 65. Those Americans 16 or older not working are:
20% – 16 to 24
9% – 25 to 34
8% – 35 to 44
10% – 45 to 54
15% – 55 to 64
38% – 65+
This number will only increase due to demographics.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/economy/unemployment-rate/index.htm

chuck
July 29, 2014 7:17 pm

dbstealey says:
July 29, 2014 at 1:48 pm
“And I don’t think he will remove his chart of atmospheric CO2:”
..
Can you tell me what you are trying to prove? My comment was directed at the person that didn’t think it was possible to get 0.01 degrees C accuracy in the measurement of the anomaly.
.
Reading is fundamental,

chuck
July 29, 2014 7:21 pm

Mary Brown says:
July 29, 2014 at 1:29 pm
“they are all trying to come up with a global temperature anomaly”
..
Real easy
..
Take the average of the four values.

chuck
July 29, 2014 7:29 pm

Mary Brown says:
July 29, 2014 at 1:29 pm
” That is laughably less than the error of measurement ”
..
Again…
.
http://ww2.tnstate.edu/ganter/BIO311-Ch6-Eq1.gif

Which means if “n” is 3000, and you want a 0.01 error bound, as long as “s” (the standard deviation) of the AGRO’s bouys is less than 0.5477…….you get 0.01 accuracy.

July 29, 2014 7:58 pm

chuck says:
Can you tell me what you are trying to prove?
That you cherry-pick factoids like any other alarmist. As I wrote:
So tell us: what can you post that is worth worrying about?
Tiny anomalies are not worth worrying about. Also, your comment about ARGO avoids the fact that the buoys show ocean cooling.
Science is fundamental, chuckles.