Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

As readers know, the recent paper Karl et al. 2015, written by the head of the National Climatic Data Center now NCEI, went to great lengths to try to erase “the pause” from the surface temperature record using a series of adjustments. Those adjustments are deemed unacceptable and criticized by some climate scientists, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Chip Knappenberger, and Dr. Pat Michaels, who recently wrote:

In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.

As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

Dr. Judith Curry added:

My bottom line assessment is this.  I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.  The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth.  This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set.   The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target.  So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

Large adjustments accounted for the change, but one really should go back to the definition of “adjustments” to understand the true meaning and effect:

adjustment

But, what if there were a dataset of temperature that was so well done, so scientifically accurate, and so completely free of bias that by its design, there would never be any need nor justification for any adjustments to the data?

Such a temperature record exists, it is called the U.S. Climate Reference Network, (USCRN) and it is also operated by NOAA/NCDC’s (NCEI) head administrator,Tom Karl:

Data from NOAA’s premiere surface reference network. The contiguous U.S. network of 114 stations was completed in 2008. There are two USCRN stations in Hawaii and deployment of a network of 29 stations in Alaska continues. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years?

These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades. Stations are monitored and maintained to high standards and are calibrated on an annual basis. In addition to temperature and precipitation, these stations also measure solar radiation, surface skin temperature, and surface winds. They also include triplicate measurements of soil moisture and soil temperature at five depths, as well as atmospheric relative humidity for most of the 114 contiguous U.S. stations. Stations in Alaska and Hawaii provide network experience and observations in polar and tropical regions. Deployment of a complete 29-station USCRN network in Alaska began in 2009. This project is managed by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and operated in partnership with NOAA’s Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Division.

Yes the USCRN is state of the art, and signed off on by Tom Karl here:

USCRN-paperSource: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/71748.pdf

So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?

While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the NCDC website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted. We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.  I’ve done so, here, using a tool provided for that very purpose by NOAA/NCDC/NCEI:

USCRN-CONUS-PLOT-10YEARS

Note the NOAA watermark in the plot above.

Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

NOAA helpfully provides that data in a comma separated values (CSV) file, which I have converted into Excel: USCRN-CONUS-time-series

Plotting that USCRN data, provides a duplicate of the above plot from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI, but also allows for plotting the trend. I’ve done so using the actual data from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI they provided at the source link above, using the DPlot program:

USCRN-trend-plot-from-NCDC-data

USCRN monthly CONUS data with polynomial “least squares fit, order of 1” for trend line done in DPlot program

Clearly, a “pause” or “hiatus” exists in this most pristine climate data. In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears. But don’t take my word for it, you can replicate the plot above yourself using the links, free trial program, and USCRN data I provided from NOAA/NCDC/NCEI.

Let’s hope that Mr. Karl doesn’t see the need to write a future paper “adjusting” this data to make the last decade of no temperature trend in the contiguous USA disappear. That would be a travesty.

225 thoughts on “Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

  1. I would love to see a global chart of USCRN & the two Sat data for the same period. These three sources give us the clearest views of the natural climate changes through time.

    • You can go to woodfortrees and plot the two sat datasets for yourself for the same time period. I don’t think you can single out the US data from the sat data though…

    • That was my first thought, but UAH don’t give US cut out of data. NH TLT is only similar in slope, detail no so much, which is probably to be expected.

  2. Excellent report Anthony.

    I wonder if it’s going to result in this data getting adjusted and/or harder to locate? /sarc

    • That’s not /sarc. You have every right to be very concerned going by recent behaviour

      • I understand that data was involved in a mysterious single vehicle accident at a sharp turn on a mountain road. Apparently the data and vehicle were largely burned up in the fire resulting from the accident and the remains are too difficult to recover from the steep embankment. One official who began to investigate the accident rrsigned under accusations of marital infidelity.

      • I know it’s not /sarc. I believe there is a very high probability that the data will either get adjusted or become harder to find. Probably should have used a wink instead of the sarc.

      • Hey Michael Palmer, you mean like hard drives crashing ala the IRS Tea Party BS?

        Somebody should have a contest on what is the most probable fate this data is going to meet…

      • Climate Adjustment Bureau – 101 – Winston Smith.

        George Orwell – had his finger on the pulse in 1949:

        Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful, murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

        If George Orwell were alive, would he be a global warming skeptic?
        “There are notions so foolish that only an intellectual and useful tools will believe them,”

        Orwell would be sceptical of the non-sceptics and sadly would be all too familiar with some of the current behaviours of Big Government.

    • “Pause “hiatus”?
      Is it not just as well described at the top of the curve in “Peak Surface Temperature” ?
      Time for the public purse trough dwellers to start tracking the downward curve for AGC(ooling)…

      • If you can come up with a believable reason that CO2 can explain the recent cessation and apparent reversal of the previously evident warming, you will also win a Nobel Prize (or maybe they’ll transfer Al’s). They can then continue their conquest of controlling the world’s resources, unfettered by reality.

    • Ask Phil Jones he managed to lose all the original data from University of East Anglia Hadley Center.

      • from: Phil Jones
        subject: Re: For your eyes only
        to: “Michael E. Mann”
        Mike,
        ….
        If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

    • Or just call it something else.
      Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
      “One example of one of the problems can be seen on the BEST site at station 166900–not somempoorly sited USCHN starion, rather the Amundsen research base at the south pole, where 26 lows were ‘corrected up to regional climatology’ ( which could only mean the coastal Antarctic research stations or a model) creating a slight warming trend at the south pole when the actual data shows none-as computed by BEST and posted as part of the station record.”

      The lows are not Corrected UP to the regional climatology.

      There are two data sets. your are free to use either.
      You can use the raw data
      You can use the EXPECTED data.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/

      See how easy it is.

      • DD More commented

        The lows are not Corrected UP to the regional climatology.
        There are two data sets. your are free to use either.
        You can use the raw data
        You can use the EXPECTED data.

        Why would even the expected data be corrected up? Doesn’t that all by itself indicate something is wrong?

  3. It would be nice if there are as a thorough global independent ground data set. I don’t know if such a thing exists. I have heard of independant sea level assessments but not ground data.

  4. Thank you for your efforts to share good data and the tools to use so we can understand more clearly. Then share our understanding with others.

  5. Please allow me to mimic a response from the Climate Fearosphere: “Oh, but the US isn’t the world”.
    Did I get that about right?
    /s

    • The Fearosphere do dismiss the USCRN for precisely that reason, right before telling us that Hurricane Sandy or the floods in Texas, or the California drought, or earlier springs in Massachusetts are all due to “Climate Change”.

    • Easy retort , but the U.S. is part of the world .. We don’t call it agw-the us ..

      If the entire golbe is warming that would include the U.S. .. Or does our military might somehow stop heat ?

    • Bingo. This is precisely why skeptics must be vigilant in responding to those who use GLOBAL temperature data to assert all kinds of climactic catastrophes onto Americans. Like President Obama, who says that his daughters’ asthma makes him especially concerned about the impact of climate change on American health.

      No mention that the USCRN shows clearly that there has been no warming at all in the US over the last 10 years. No mention that he was a two-packs-a-day smoker during his daughter’s young childhood. No, he instead claims that all Americans are at much greater risk of asthma because you use electricity or drive a car.

      Every time an American politician or media pundit talks about the growing impacts of Climate Change on America or Americans, skeptics should loudly denounce them with the unassailable fact that America IS NOT WARMING according to the pristine USCRN data.

  6. Maybe more data points would help?

    The World in 2100, According to NASA’s New Big Dataset
    ‘The predictions shown in this daily max temperature map come from a new NASA dataset released to the public on June 9th, one that collates historical records and climate models to produce high-resolution forecasts for the end of the century.’

    “NASA is in the business of taking what we’ve learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future,” said Ellen Stofan, NASA chief scientist. “With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet.”

    According to NASA:
    This NASA dataset integrates actual measurements from around the world with data from climate simulations created by the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. These climate simulations used the best physical models of the climate system available to provide forecasts of what the global climate might look like under two different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a “business as usual” scenario based on current trends and an “extreme case” with a significant increase in emissions.

    The NASA climate projections provide a detailed view of future temperature and precipitation patterns around the world at a 15.5 mile (25 kilometer) resolution, covering the time period from 1950 to 2100. The 11-terabyte dataset provides daily estimates of maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation over the entire globe.

    http://gizmodo.com/the-world-in-2100-according-to-nasas-new-big-dataset-1710798646

    • That might be fun for comparing against the Farmer’s Almanac, O.C.W.!
      I’ll still bet on the almanac, myself…

    • More data points of intensive properties don’t make a “global average” any more meaningful.

  7. So Karl, who just published a paper showing a rising temperature or lack of a pause, is also jointly responsible for the most accurate terrestrial US temperature measurement system which is displaying a gentle fall in temperature.

    Oh dear, who or what to believe!

    • The questions have been raised over how Karl’s 2015 paper treated buoys and ship data.

      There are remarkably few buoys and ships sailing across the continent of North America.
      They lack wheels.

  8. Where did the y=0.6186x -0.002678 come from. I got y=-0.0024x +0.6042
    The plot shows a negative slope on the trendline yet the equation shows positive.

    • No, the plot I have shows a negative trend, note the -0.002678.

      I have no idea what you are doing, or with what, so I can’t comment on your results since you don’t show your work.

      • The NOAA’s own interactive CLIMATE AT A GLANCE web page calculates the trend of the CONTIGUOUS US ANNUAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY between 2005 and 2015 to be -0.69 F/decade using the base period of 2005-2015 Similar figure for 1998-2015 is -0.48 F/ decade.

    • I get the same exact answer that Anthony has. I think the confusion stems from Anthony’s choice of units on the x-axis. Note that his x-axis is in units of months relative to the first data point.

      So if you want the trend in degC/year, multiply by 12/1.8 to get -0.0179 degC/yr,
      which is also -1.78 degC/century.

      • I usually present it in form y=mx+b.
        the graph is b+mx. I added a column and used months =0 – 124. Data was in degrees F.

    • ” yet the equation shows positive”

      you misread, as I did initially, it’s not too clear. You are expecting the conventional y=m*x+c and it’s printed y=c+m*x

      You both have neg. slope, small difference if fitted values.

    • I get a trend of -0.032ºF/year… or since our data is now a decade long, -0.32ºF/decade

      If you go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=6

      You can also turn on USHCN or ClimDiv. These are very obviously being adjusted to match USCRN.
      I don’t know if the USHCN data on that page is what gets fed into Giss or HadCrut, but from the manic adjustment happening to data elsewhere in the world, it could be.. they have to create their warming from somewhere !!!

      • -0.32ºF/decade
        =========
        Yeow, that is – 3.2F a century for the continental US. That is -1.8 C. Dangerously close to the 2 C that the IPCC says will wipe out all life on earth. How will the US survive the next century as temperatures dip ever closer to the dreaded Hansen tipping point?

  9. I wonder what is the total cost to the U.S.Taxpayers of installing and maintaining this network, the output of which is seemingly ignored by its ‘owners’ because it doesn’t support the party line?

    Great job Anthony. I hope that your charts are widely published.

  10. I would ask Karl if he would make those same adjustments if they erased increasing temperatures when the raw data actually showed increasing temperatures.

  11. Can anyone explain to me why the astonishing and worrying rise in global surface temps has seemingly had absolutely zero effect on the global precipitation averages.
    At least, an internet search on this topic returns various graphs from various sources, some dating back as far as the start of the last century, but all unified by their distinctly flat and unchanging trends.
    Should not the dramatic warming of planet earth have driven some shift in the overall rate at which water is evaporated from and then showered back onto the surface?
    Or is that just some silly idea that I got from Blade Runner?
    Here is a typical example of a flat precipitation trend. How is this sort of graph explained away in light of the recent much trumpeted warming of planet earth?
    Is this not a puzzle?
    http://www.aqua.nasa.gov/meso/index.php?section=19

    • Yes, it’s a puzzle but since it doesn’t fit the narrative it will be studiously ignored. Sorry about that. Normal programming will resume forthwith …

      PS from your link. Since the global precipitation doesn’t change, the pink area in the last image must balance the bluer areas.

    • If the air is warmer, does it not “hold” more? Therefore extra evaporation would increase humidity,but not necessarily rainfall.
      Until, of course, the more humid air hits a cold spot.

  12. Archive that data, and make sure there are no changes to past data !
    This trend should be publicized far and wide.

    Yea, the USA is only 4% of the world, but it is suspicious that all the warming (in the adjusted data sets) is alleged to be in far off hard to get to places (like the arctic).

    • I have the USCRN data in a spreadsheet, I check for changes each time they add a new month.

      Its a matter of trust ;-)

    • Hey J, one of the wonderfully elegant things about the “excess heat is hiding deep in the ocean” lie is that it was impossible for an average person to go check.

      Of course, any parent has seen this behavior with very small children.
      “Mommy! there is a monster hiding under my bed!”
      “No, there is no monster. I just looked. No monster.”
      “There is too a monster! It is an invisible monster!”

  13. Great post, such an obvious thing to check. It’s only US land temps but it tells the story.

    Now look at the data they provide.:
    200501,1.75
    200502,2.50
    200503,-0.88
    200504,0.41
    etc.

    With billion dollar budget that’s the best they can do. I now have to get out my calculator if I want to know what this is in degrees C ?? What a web site , they couldn’t manage a button for centigrade? And look at the dates 200502 WTF, so now I have to mess around splitting this in months and years, cool.

    I suppose three simple columns of data would have been too obvious.

    • Perhaps you could find data more to you liking at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html

      Quality Controlled Datasets

      Selected subsets of monthly, daily, hourly and sub-hourly (5-minute) USCRN/USRCRN data are available as text files for easy access by users ranging from the general public to science experts. The most useful variables, including air temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, surface temperature, soil moisture and soil temperature data, are available. Files contain raw observations with quality flags, as well as calculated variables. Calculated data are shown only if a sufficient amount of source data passes its quality control tests; otherwise these values are set to a missing value.

      For the daily, hourly and sub-hourly data, users can retrieve the entire archive of data by downloading the most recent file in the snapshots subdirectory. The updates subdirectory in the daily and hourly directories contain a record of the real-time daily/hourly data transmitted over NOAAPORT. Detailed descriptions of the files and variables are available in the documentation links listed below.

      The sub-hourly data is every 5 minutes. See ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/subhourly01/README.txt

      Remember, this the NCDC. They don’t seem to have a goal of making data easy to find, though in this case it’s actually pretty easy starting from their home page.

  14. The USCRN was created to provide “good” surface data for the USA. In this case, good means that the entire system was designed to follow methodical scientific standards of measurement.
    The reason for the creation of the USCRN was the total lack of such good standards in the maintenance of most “weather” stations, that were intended for local weather forecasting and aircraft safety.
    That means that temperature data prior to the USCRN can NOT be trusted, although some individual stations may be good for some periods of time.
    BTW, some USCRN stations came online in 2002 with stations added every year since. The website provides the basic data organized by individual station. Looking at the individual stations that started in 2002 it is clear that there is NO trend in the temp data. No warming, no cooling anywhere. Some stations do show that 2012 was clearly warmer than any other by a few degrees, with 2013 returning to “normal”

    • What makes you say the USHCN is “good”. Microsite is bad.

      CRN, OTOH, is a thing of beauty. Triple-redundant sensors and the dozen or so I looked at were so Class 1 it hurt.

  15. Anthony, when are you going to set up a mirror to archive all this data before it gets adjusted?

    I have some fairly technical suggestions about how to preserve the authenticity of the data (such as providing and independently archiving secure hash checksums). Email me for details if you want, but here are some ideas:

    Here’s a summary paper on the topic:

    https://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/9C4EBC25-B4A3-6584-C38C511467A6B862.pdf

    In the old world of “first to invent” patent rights, we used a service that would securely checksum the evidence and publish the checksum in a reputable place, thereby archiving the time and place of invention with a mere 256 bits of data.

    IMHO these techniques should be required for your open atmosphere society publishing guidelines.

    Peter

  16. The cool thing is that the Gold standard MATCHES the “bad data” from nearby sites!!!

    DOH!

    further:

    1. The US is not the world
    2. The Land is not the ocean.

    [3. and Mosher’s drive by opinions aren’t the final word on anything -Anthony]

    • “2. The Land is not the ocean”

      Aren’t land temperatures ultimately be driven by the oceans?

    • [The US is not the world] Talk about beating a dead horse. Neither is one tree in Yamal or an ice core. On the other hand the US has the best network of weather/climate data stations in the world therefore a very good proxy, wait for it……….. the world! You like proxies right?

    • If all the heating or cooling takes place in the oceans than there would not be any long term heating or cooling over land.

    • If you can’t capitalize properly in your drive-bys, maybe you shouldn’t be texting while you drive-by. That’s dangerous.

    • Of all the things to take a shot at: an analysis that is about as close to reciting the multiplication tables as you can get with empirical evidence. This rejoinder is more Islamist fire-away-and-if-Allah-wills-it-will-hit-the-target than it is American Sniper.

    • 1. + 2. The US sits next to the largest ocean body and is directly affected by it. It is nicely populated close to the average for any one regional area on Earth (within the range of not populated all the way to heavily populated) and burns lots of fossil fuels. Meaning that if human-sourced CO2 were causing either the air over land to heat, or the oceans to heat beyond natural variation, you think you would notice it as a positive trend on these surface temperature stations. I think Mosher understands this very well and I consider his above argument to be quite hollow, not to mention his disregard for well maintained research plots. I would also be willing to bet that he believes human heat to be hiding in the deep oceans and actively searches for papers that purport to have found exactly how that heat transfers magically from the air to the deep without leaving a trail.

      (note: to head off a counter-argument, to say that this dangerous heat is absorbed into a much bigger space and would thus be impossible to detect as it transfers to the deep, also means that even if humans were causing this heat, it is essentially harmless since it fails to rise above natural variation.)

    • The really cool thing about Mr Karl’s dubious data adjustments to erase a pause is that resulting trends are still around 1.1 deg C/century. And that is still GCM fail.

    • 1. The US is not the world
      ===============
      so if the rest of the world is boiling and the US is freezing, the duty of the US president is to:

      1. make the US warmer
      2. make the US colder
      3. make the world warmer
      4. make the world colder.

      I expect there is a very large disconnect between the current administration and the people on the correct answer to this question.

    • It seems such a waste to maintain so many expensive sites when NOAA could rely on 3 or 4 spaced with the standard 1200 km radius and just infill the rest. /sarc off

  17. Anybody happen to know where the 114 stations are situated? And what is the significance of the ‘high’ in March 2012?

    • The graph with the high in March is of temperature anomalies – the how much warmer the temperature is relative the long term average. Negative amounts reflect times went the country’s temperature was colder than average.

      A graph of the average US temperature would have a much wider swing, so anomaly plots are much more useful than actual temperature. (Or graphs that start with Y = 0K by people who claim that better reflects reality.)

      • Thanks to all you guys who answered my dumb question. I should have realised, just did not look hard enough. Interstestingly ‘Latitude’ has supplied a ‘wiki’ lead which shows a wide spread heat wave at the time, which i was not aware of.

      • My high school and college aged kids were/are not allowed to use wiki as a citation/reference in any research paper. I have personally found it to be badly inaccurate in some subject areas where I believe I am an expert, and especially if the subject has a political aspect. You might want to reconsider this source, and avoid it. There seems to be too many biased liberal wiki editors who apparently use their parents as their source of income and their parent’s basement as their abode (i.e. way more time to keep the message matching their world view than everyone else has to try to correct the record).

  18. Anthony: Good work here. The fact that this lack of warming exists over a large land continent like the whole USA, presents a severe problem to NOAA in the contradiction of getting a warming result when including the oceans. The physics of that doesn’t make sense. The specific heats of the continent are LOWER than that of the oceans, so if CO2 warming was real, the anomaly must emerge in this data set FIRST.

    The fact that it doesn’t and the satellite record conforms to the land USA zero trend and slight cooling indicates a flawed and suspect manipulation of the NOAA treatment. If these guys wer doing science, they should have realized this as soon as they obtained the result that they did.

    Taxpayers have a right to expect that the billions being spent on NOAA per year should be the promotion and reservation of the true ideas of atmospheric science and meteorology, not this asinine power grab that appears to have happened through the Obama administration that is just politicizing every agency it seems to be able to get it’s hands on and further the gross fraud that is CO2 AGW through abusing these agencies and soliciting their agents to help them.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • Chuck Wiese –

      you bring up a good point.

      Wonder how the satellite records of just the US match with the 10 years of USCRN?

    • Anthony: Good work here. The fact that this lack of warming exists over a large land continent like the whole USA

      Well, Canada is larger than the US. Central America is smaller.

      I wouldn’t call the whole USA a continent….

    • If you compare the average of today’s warming to tonight’s cooling for all NCDC GSOD listed stations since 1940 that have more than 360 samples per year ( a total of about 69 million daily samples ) 50 of the last 74 years are slightly negative, 30 of the last 34 years are negative, and the overall average is slightly negative.
      Nightly cooling exceeds day time warming.

  19. “So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?”

    [CAGW]Only if it matches our preconceived notions.[/CAGW]

    /grin

  20. Seriously, there was a time when NOAA had some form of a disclaimer saying something along the lines of “our data isn’t reliable, so we have formed the U.S. Climate Reference Network, (USCRN).” Overall, it was an admission that long term data collected was very much suspect.

    Therefore, it is reasonable for one to wonder why the USCRN is not now the basis for NOAA’s monthly reports?

    • Part of the reason, I’m sure, is that the CRN doesn’t have a full three decade record to fit the WMO range used to determine a normal climate.

      The three decade has a questionable heritage. From these two snippets, you can deduce the WMO means any 30 year period, three full decades (I think Roy Spencer is using that), or non-overlapping decadess, i.e. 1961-1990 will be followed by 1991-2020).

      I’ve also seen claims that 30 years is used because that’s what conveniently fit in the ledger books used in the pre-computer era.

      Of course, Karl & co. are quite happy to ignore the CRN data as its short length encourages looking at other surface records that show the peak temperature was around 2005/2006 and it’s been (slowly) downhill since then.

      From http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.php :

      What is Climate?

      Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

      The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

      From http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_data_and_products.php :

      Climate Normals

      Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.

      • The three decade has a questionable heritage.

        If there are 60 year climate cycles (e.g. PDO), then by Nyquist it requires 120 years of observation.

        30 years is definitely bad, as that is 1/2 a cycle, so you’ll be optimistic for one 30 year period and pessimistic for another 30 year period… I’d rather go with 60 years as long you know the exact 1-2 years of the start or end of the multi-decadal cycles.

  21. my problem with all of this is that there is a fundamental difficulty with understanding of reality.
    For example if I look about I see a 3D space yet my thinking says that if I look over there ( just 1 foot slightly to my right and down a bit) it is impossible to imagine I could examine that little area of 3D space ’till it was really, really tiny forever. Further, a thing might exist, occupying this space but I can pick it up and wave it around, changing the location of all of the tiny bits. It is because of this dilemma that I am loath to accept anything as certain and I’m sorry if I come over as a bit hippy_like when I am really not.

  22. But if they don’t erase the pause, then they can’t use the results as a basis for an authoritarian state. Worse, they might lose funding for their boondoggle kaffeeklatch in Paris.

    In all seriousness, at some point, the decent amongst us are going to need to pass laws to make such abuse of data a criminal offense. It may already be under fraud laws. As far as I am concerned, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, T.R. Karl et. al. belong behind bars.

    • “As far as I am concerned, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, T.R. Karl et. al. belong behind bars.”

      The problem is that the people who control the courts are the same people who are paying Mann, Jones and Karl to produce the reports.

  23. Frequently , those who disapprove of articles posted on this website , or the opinions of those who comment , decry this and similar websites as being totally irrelevant to the ongoing progress of climate science , since the comments cannot be compared in credibility to articles in established scientific journals.
    In general I think that is probably undeniable, but there may be instances where the situation is not as clearcut , and the “pause” or “hiatus ” may be such an example .
    Without doubt , and despite the recent Tom Karl paper denying its existence , it has made its way into the mainstream of scientific literatiure and achieved a honourable (or dishonourable) mention in IPCC dispatches .
    My question is : who first promoted the suggestion that global temperatures were stalling or levelling , despite continued increase in CO2 concentration , in apparent contradiction of the elementary theories of radiative transfer in the textbooks. Was it on blog sites such as this or in a peer revewed artcles in Geophys Res Lett or some such?
    Does anyone know who caught and called out the first glimpse of a “pause”.

    • Mike –

      My guess would be the data, surface and satellite, first noted the “pause”.

      Since blogs can respond quicker to the data than a peer reviewed paper, it would then make sense that it was noted in blogs before peer reviewed literature.

      • Thank you for the comment John.It reinforces my feeling that websites such as this one fulfill a useful alerting function as you suggest . It goes someway to contradict the sneers from certain quarters about the usefulness of blog sites, although such sites do not expect to be able to compete with the systematic application of the multiple resources available in a university or Govt lab.
        In the case of the “pause” i suspect that it would have been a brave young grad student who first suggested to his or her professors that the latest data suggested a deviation from accepted (consensus) wisdom, but if the idea was already out in the blogosphere then it would become more acceptable as a subject of debate.

    • Blogs. Climastrologists kept pointing out that the duration of the “pause” was too short, you needed 15 (Prof Jones) or 17 years (Dr Santer) before it became significant. It was only after those periods were achieved, that the real clucking & squawking started in pal-revued journals & “explanations” for the pause or pause-denial started appearing.

    • I do not remember who first said “wait a minute”, but the warmists were sure going on about it in the climategate emails. I think some of those emails dated back to 2005.
      Also, I suspect that if anyone were to crawl through the early WUWT archives, they would come up with some fairly early point on the pause. We see also that while the warmist camp was talking about the pause in private, the last thing they wanted was to see it mentioned out in the open, especially in the literature.

    • This is not the first pause or just “no increase in global temperature” while increasing atmospheric CO2 during our time is a well documented fact. The first pause is given here:

      http://www.climate4you.com/

      Not that I want to denigrate this current post about no increase in the last 9 years in the USA. Certainly great data and a big thank you to Mr. Watts.
      He just have to add the linear increase in CO2 with his temperature data plot to show that there is no relationship between the two during this period. I am sure somebody will do it. Obvious.

      • To dbstealy.
        yes, the plot CO2 increases vs. temperature anomalies during this time period is what is more important. No relationship between the increase in CO2 and the temperature anomalies during the past 9 years. Granted, a short period but the same is true from the beginning of reliable CO2 atmospheric concentration measurements in 1958. From 1958 to about 1978 or so, CO2 increased while temperature anomalies decreases! So not the first time for no correlation between the two as shown here and other reliable sources:
        http://www.climate4you.com/
        Thank you for the plot. I expected somebody would show this.

    • I don’t know if it was the *first glimpse of a “pause”, but a blog called ‘Foresight of Hindsight’ mentioned it on January 28, 2012. The blog used the UAH satellite graph which still had a trend curve at that stage. It wasn’t long after that when Drs. Spencer and Christie stopped using the software generated trend curve. I believe it was because the curve started to indicate a slight downward trend. On reflection, it was the right thing to do because the graphs of today show a mostly level trend. … http://foresight-of-hindsight.blogspot.com/2012/01/evidence-shows-no-global-warming-for.html

  24. Karl et al. 2015, fabrication, plain and clear. Satellite temperature data is the only data that we can trust, if we can trust anything, in this context. All surface temperature data is polluted, manipulated, inaccurate, questionable, tweaked to suit the purpose. It’s essentially garbage.

  25. Steven Mosher June 14, 2015 at 10:46 am
    The cool thing is that the Gold standard MATCHES the “bad data” from nearby sites

    Um, I believe you need to show your work/data regarding that statement.

    Also, no “cherry picking” – if there are numerous “nearby sites”, then you can’t just pick the one that matches, you must show them all.

    You must also show the CRN Rating for each “nearby” site.

    Additionally, you need to define “nearby”.

    Of course, that is only if you want to be taken seriously.

    If not, you’ve done a great job here so far.

    • Even if the USCRN matches nearby sites, this is OK.

      That means the near by sites also show no warming in the past 10 years.

      The other thing I love about this unadjusted real data, is it provides a great answer if you hear about “evidence” of carbon dioxide based warming in the USA. So if snail darter populations are down in the west of the US in the past 10 years due to “global warming”, we have a good reason to call BS!

      • From the link below, it looks like USHCN is being adjusted to match USCRN.

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=6

        There is really no way that two data sets from two different measurement systems could match that well.

        btw, if you take the USHCN data and run a linear trend from 2005 until Aug 2014, you get a COOLING trend of -0.08ºF/year. (note this value is from memory, the spreadsheet is on my home computer, not this one)

      • It is a bit difficult to tell, given Mosher’s drive-by posting style, but I think we are meant to infer from his “matches” comment that since neighboring USCHN data is similar to the USCRN data, we should therefore trust ALL of the GLOBAL adjustments to historical data. We should also presumably trust the heavy adjustments to the US data prior 2005. After all, the post 2005 data “matches” so obviously the adjusters are trustworthy, right?.

        Despite Mosher’s belief, those inferences do not, of course, actually follow from the “matches”. Our NOAA “adjusters” are perfectly aware that they can’t get away with adjusting the post 2005 US data given the existence of USCRN. That is a degree of corruption that would be way too obvious to be plausible. Besides, they don’t need to adjust the post 2005 US data. Much better to fiddle with interpolations over the Antarctic or with non-existent data in the Pacific.

    • Judith Curry provides a site for the study comparing CRN with nearby HCN sites. The study is clear but pointless. All it says is that HCN sites near CRN sites, both in pristine areas are OK . So why is the HCN record “adjusted?” And if the issue is urban heat island, why is the HCN record adjusted up? Shouldn’t it be down?

      Hear is the article: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/06/COOP-United-States-Climate-Reference-Network-USCRN-stations.html?m=1

    • The difference in temperature from where I work and where I live, about 13 miles apart as the crow flies, can differ by as much as 27f on a clear summer day. So please explain how choosing a nearby site is meaningful. The temperature at each location is an intensive property of that location at that point in time. you can’t average the two locations together and come up with anything physically meaningful.

  26. LOL

    Once a fraudster and clima-teer fiddled with he’s numbers
    Trying to achieve a belief that would not flee
    And he sang as he watched as he’s old computer did a boil:
    Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me

    Adjusting the adjustments, adjusting the adjustments
    Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me
    And he sang as he watched as he’s old computer did a boil:
    Who’ll come adjusting the adjustments, with me

    Ha ja ;-D

    • You have got to be from down under to laugh along with that. May I advise all yous from the far northern hemisphere to Google, “Waltzing Mathilda”.

    • Adjusting we will go, adjusting we will go
      Heigh-ho, the derry-o, adjusting we will go
      We’ll make the future temps look high
      And make the past temps low
      Adjusting we will go, adjusting we will go
      Heigh-ho, the derry-o, adjusting we will go
      And o’er a beer we discuss our career
      How we now find such cheer in promotion of fear
      Adjusting we will go… etc

  27. I expect an adjustment of “raw” data any moment now in order to prevent people discovering this sort of thing. Of course, the opposite of “raw” is “cooked”.

  28. I understand that Dr. Gleick’s autodefenestration screwed up funding to bring us this data. I do hope it’s only a temporary setback!

  29. The pause is evident on the NOAA Climate at a Glance web page as well and it applies to most of Contiguous US and Canada ( Really most of North America) 70 % of US and Canada have cooling anomaly trends for ANNUAL temperatures

    Regional trend of Contiguous US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998

    8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend

    • OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F/decade
    • UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F/decade
    • NORTH EAST -0.1F/decade
    • NORTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
    • SOUTH -0.5 F/decade
    • SOUTHEAST -0.4 F/decade
    • SOUTHWEST -0.1 F/decade
    • WEST +0.7 F/decade
    • NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -1.0 F/decade

    The cooling is still apparent if you look at the last 10 years only. 34 States out of 48 states show cooling since 2005

    • It is hard to understand why the pause is not real .Canada and US annual temperature trends have been cooling since 1998 .These two countries represent 75 % 0f North America . AMO which reflects North Atlantic SST temperatures is cooling since 2002, Canadian Atlantic province’s temperatures have been flat or in a pause since 1998. US North east and South east states show a cooling trend since 1998. The South Atlantic SST shows no warming . . . HOW CAN ALL THESE AREAS BE COOLER WHEN THE OCEANS AROUND THEM ARE SUPPOSED BE WARMING ACCORDING TO THE NEW NOAA SST CORRECTIONS?

      • I think NOAA IS pulling the same trick with Ocean sst temperatures adjustment as they did with the 2014 ANNUAL RECORD TEMPERATURES claim, making regional issues as if they were global. . In my opinion, 2014 was not a record temperature year all over the globe or ” globally “It may have been a record year due to the regional warm “blob” in the Northwest Pacific and the El Nino during the last three months . Yet they claimed 2014 as the warmest year globally while LARGE PARTS OF THE GLOBE DID NOT HAVE RECORD TEMPERATURES AT ALL DURING 2014
        There is no evidence that all global oceans are warming faster at all than previously already reported .and to the same degree the last 18 years to warrant an across the board adjustment of all global ocean sst . The suggested problems with temperature measurements may only apply in few locations, if at all . The sst readings had already been adjusted in the past so this latest adjustment is completely unnecessary and seems wrong and it seems to me to be more like a political move than scientific one..

  30. Disregard the above table (labelling errors)
    Correct Trend Results UAH v.6 for US 48

    Trends incl. May 2015
    1979-2015 0.0153 c/yr
    1979-1998 0.0144 c/yr
    1998-2015 -0.0116 c/yr
    2005-2105 -0.0091 c/yr

  31. Pristine US surface dataset. Hmmm, that’s like calling my toilet water pristine then I being a lover of ice tea, dip my carafe into the basin to scoop some up…apply mix and drink. Later that day, I feel not well as the purety coefficient of my toilet water was adjusted up and I was cool with that

  32. Let’s call a spade a spade: Karl set out to achieve exactly the desired outcome he and his pals wanted: to obliterate the pause. To slice and dice measured, observed and established evidence in the way he did to the extent he did represents deliberate climate fraud. Nothing more or less. Simple as that.

  33. The Karl paper found the warming in the oceans more than land. Does not compute from thermal mass comsiderations, as commented on above.. It found it by warming and then overweighing the newer SST buoy data, while ignoring the near surface only Argo data which does not show this warming. And, it does not foot to the UK SST product, as bob Tisdale previously pointed out.
    A really obvious bad try.

      • “First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”

        Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm.

        explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.

        Data Peeking
        Keep adjusting until you get the answer you seek.

      • Yes, I read it in its entirety. You start to get the impression that as soon as warming is found, then they’ll stop digging. It doesn’t come across as ‘correction’ or looking for the truth, it comes across as searching for warming…until you get it…then stop searching. I don’t know whether it’s my subjective brain, or whether it’s the truth.

      • The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley June 15, 2015 at 12:14 am
        … You start to get the impression that as soon as warming is found, then they’ll stop digging. …

        Just like election recounts. You do it until your guy wins and then you stop.

  34. If a lie is all that is seen and read, then that is all that is believed. One must counter each lie with a barrage of correction, and the perpetrator of the lie identified and scorned, as well as ridiculed.

  35. I have long since decided that NCDC and NOAA and NASA will outright lie.

    Nah, it’s pining for the fjords.

  36. Standard Deviation of data: 1.92 degrees. Typical 3 Sigma to mean falling outside of the presumed “distribution” as a statistically significant shift, 6 degrees F or 3 degrees C. This is the first time, in 10 years that I’d done an S.D. on a clean set of data like this (I do thank them for their data page.) But, it puts in perspective all the haughty, stupid, worthless stuff done with the PRE WII data, which has NO QUALITY CONTROL, NO CONSISTENCY…and (like the infamous “ocean heat content plot, is shown to be a FABRICATION by the sudden “dead level” ocean heat as of the ARGO BUOYS !!)the pre WWII is a WORTHLESS DATA SET, contrived in the last 30 years to “make a case”. The shrinking of the N.P. ice, A NORMAL CYCLE. The evidence to show a true shift in the atmospheric ENERGY BALANCE…LACKING.

    PEOPLE WITH GOOD STATISTICAL KNOWLEDGE and the understanding of SIGNIFICANCE TESTS, please contribute on this!

  37. The units were not given, but based on the fact that it started around 0.6 F and ended around 0.3 F, I assume the -0.002678 has to be -0.002678 F/month since
    – 0.002678 x 125 = – 0.33475. Unless I made a mistake, this is – 0.002678 x 0.5555 x 12 = – 0.01785 C/year. The global RSS for this period is about 10 times smaller at -0.001881 C/year. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2005/plot/rss/from:2005/trend

    UAH6.0 is slightly positive at 0.00121 C/year for this same interval globally.

  38. Here’s a funny story about Arthur Smith, Librarian to the American Physical Society. Years ago at lucia’s Blackboard he attempted to ridicule me by using his valuable time to try to track down the first time I ever used the phrase: ‘The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know’. He found it back to around 2007, but I think I came up with it before that. Of course, all his ridicule did was allow me to explain why I thought so. And, of course, to ridicule him for using his time searching my past blog posts.

    As best as I can remember I started using it when I realized that the sun was doing something new to our observations, and I also saw the declining heights of climate optima during the Holocene. Also, it was becoming evident that climate sensitivity to CO2 must be on the low side.
    ===============

    • Oops that was supposed to be placed above where they are discussing who first noticed the pause. I’m not claiming credit, as I steal everything, but I sure have been yammering about it for a long time.
      =================

  39. this is the thing (yah)?
    this Canadian Indigenous woman was on the wireless saying how she was taken from her parents and bunged in an dormitory and forced to comply by force to wasp thinking.
    Why do I mention this here? well it indicates indoctrination of thinking by authority.

  40. I wonder what the significance is of this pause is. Without confidence intervals or error margins this result does not mean much.
    In addition there is a big mistake in the statement from Pat Michaels:

    Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

    I agree that the adjustment of good data to bad data is questionable, but the part regarding the resulting warming trend is nonsense. Adjusting the ship data down to the buoy data would have resulted in exactly the same trend.

    • No need for confidence intervals, error margins. You have a pair of eyes and a brain. Couple them.
      Nothing is happening here. No trend. Nothing. No increase, no decrease. Nothing. Simply no trend.

      • One problem with that is that different people see different things. Eyes and brains are easily deceived. I’d rely on the numbers rather than subjective interpretations. Another problem is that if you look at data like this over limited spatial and temporal domains you can get pretty much any kind of result, which in most cases will be meaningless since the trend will be determined by the noise rather than the signal.

    • Aran

      You say

      I agree that the adjustment of good data to bad data is questionable, but the part regarding the resulting warming trend is nonsense. Adjusting the ship data down to the buoy data would have resulted in exactly the same trend.

      No.It would not.

      If you cannot understand this, then – to demonstrate the effect to yourself – do the following.

      Draw axes for an imaginary graph on a piece of paper.
      Put some points (or a point) at the top-right on the graph.
      Put some points (or a point) at the bottom-left on the graph.
      Put some points (or a point) half-way-up the left of the graph.

      Draw two lines; each starts at the point(s) on the top-right.
      One connects to the higher point(s) on the left and
      the other connects to the lower point(s) on the left.

      The two lines don’t have the same slope. So, choosing which point(s) on the left you ‘adjust’ to match the other affects the resulting slope of the graph. The slope is the trend.

      Richard

    • Without confidence intervals or error margins this result does not mean much.

      Error margins? We are climate scientists. We don’t need no stinkin’ error margins!

      (With apologies to fans of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)

      • opluso and Aran:

        While I agree that error margins are needed for completeness, their presence or absence is not relevant to the indication in this case.

        The trend is slightly negative but not substantially different from zero.

        Inclusion of error margins would not alter the indication that the trend is not significantly different from zero. And, yes, this can be eyeballed from the graph.

        Richard

    • Glad you agree. From you at least we won’t have to listen to whining that Hurricane Sandy, and the Texas floods, and the California drought, have anything to do with “Climate Change” since as you say, there isn’t any.

      You might also want to alert President Obama, and tell him his hysterical claims of “warming, even faster than we thought”, are nonsense.

  41. The study comparing 12 sites in the USCRN to 12 nearby sites in the (historical) COOP network is described here:

    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/06/COOP-United-States-Climate-Reference-Network-USCRN-stations.html?m=1

    An interesting result was that the maximum temperatures were biased high in all 12 of the COOP sites, with 5 of the 12 reading more than 0.5 degrees C higher,and two more than a full degree C higher. The authors suggested that the reason was the better ventilation at the USCRN sites. The minimum temperatures were split evenly between higher and lower, but those COOP stations that were lower were lower by a larger amount than those that were higher:

    “Overall, COOP sensors in shields naturally ventilated reported warmer daily maximum temperatures (+0.48°C) and cooler daily minimum temperatures (-0.36°C) than USCRN sensors, which have better solar shielding and fans to ventilate the instrument.”

    • OK, at least that study considered “nearby” to be stations less than 500 meters apart and

      implies that there are only 12 of such pairs.

      Doesn’t state the CRN Rating of the COOP stations though.

    • More better compare the gold standard to the whole network… Yup all those crappy stations give the same answer.. Go figure. maybe folks thought that station quality was settled science… na.. not skeptics..

      • Mosher –

        You make me laugh, and I appreciate that.

        To clarify: what you call “crappy stations” are what NOAA deems as non-CRN Rating 1 stations, right?

  42. All of the data that today shows a pause will be adjusted. Karl’s is just the foot in the door, the crowbar in the gap, that paves the way for what follows. The Earth will either start warming again, or the data will be adjusted. Count on it.

  43. Anybody ever notice an almost complete lack of a sense of humor with the warmunista crowd? I enjoy this WUWT site because there is a lot of joking going on here. Not all doom and gloom.

  44. Anthony I was wondering about another set of fairly pristine temperature sites/data. During your analysis/review of the U.S. Based NOAA climate sites you located many sites that had not been encroached upon by urban development or other factors that would render these sites inaccurate. Would you be able to separate the sites that were determined to be accurate and active for a long period of time to see the trend they show over the last 50 years or so? I think it would be interesting.

  45. Of course what is cool is what you see if you compare the GOLD STANDARD
    with those other rotten bad evil stations.

    So what is your NULL? what will you see if you compare a GOLD STANDARD with crappy stations?
    well, WUWT thinks that crappy stations have fake or adjusted warming…

    Lets test that… calling DR Feynman.. Dr Feynman I have a hypothesis that Crappy stations will show warming while gold standard will not. can I test that?

    Sure Pilgrim just compare

    • My reply given above directly addresses your iffy logic.

      What the heck, I’ll just re-post:

      It is a bit difficult to tell, given Mosher’s drive-by posting style, but I think we are meant to infer from his “matches” comment that since neighboring USCHN data is similar to the USCRN data, we should therefore trust ALL of the GLOBAL adjustments to historical data. We should also presumably trust the heavy adjustments to the US data prior 2005. After all, the post 2005 data “matches” so obviously the adjusters are trustworthy, right?.

      Despite Mosher’s belief, those inferences do not, of course, actually follow from the “matches”. Our NOAA “adjusters” are perfectly aware that they can’t get away with adjusting the post 2005 US data given the existence of USCRN. That is a degree of corruption that would be way too obvious to be plausible. Besides, they don’t need to adjust the post 2005 US data. Much better to fiddle with interpolations over the Antarctic or with non-existent data in the Pacific.

      • Our NOAA “adjusters” are perfectly aware that they can’t get away with adjusting the post 2005 US data given the existence of USCRN.

        I have tried to mention this several times. There is no way that the three data bases could match so well in that link I posted above, if something were NOT being adjusted to fit.

        I have frequently pre-empted that the USHCN and Clim Div were being adjusted to fit USCRN specifically for the purpose that the alarmista could claim that pre-2005 adjustments were actually realistic.

        And of cause, the hired mouthpiece for Muller et al is the first to go there.. again, as expected.

        Too late Mosh !!

      • It could be as simple as that they all infill some 80-90% of the surface based on the same calculation that uses latitude and elevation and then average it all together.
        The fact that they use the same basic algorithm and get such good agreement between groups is “confirmation ” that they’re right, not that they all just use the equation other make up data.

    • But doesn’t it follow that if there is no adjustment to neighbouring data post the USCRN and the two correspond without the need for adjustment, there ought to be no adjustment (or no need for adjustment) of neighbouring data prior to the roll out of USCRN?

      Put simply, why does neighbouring station data not need adjustments after the roll out of USCRN but does require adjustments to be made prior to the roll out of USCRN?

    • Nice graphic.

      Shows that from 2005 to 2013 there was an overall slight cooling for all measurements.

      Now that is the “pause” that refreshes!

    • Well, Dr. Feynman, often quoted here by you and many others, would ask the relevant question.
      He would say, OK, you guys (and girls would be added now in 2015) show me.
      You claim CO2 is responsible for the increase in temperature anomalies.
      Now, show me.
      Stop talking, show me.
      Where is the graph with the plot showing that there is a great (or even good or decent) correlation between the steady linear increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration and increase in temperature anomalies since we obtained reliable atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Lua site in 1958.
      Stop talking. Show me Dr. Feynman, your idol would say.
      If you cannot show me, Dr. Feynman would say, You have nothing.
      So, show it.

  46. Sorry for being late to this discussion. Of course, England isn’t the world either (though some of us think it is!), but the (adjusted) Central England Temperature shows a remarkably similar graph to Anthony’s, above:

    • Hello Ghost of BJC

      I like the graph, but what are the 2 lines? I took them to be max and min anomalies, but I can’t believe the anomaly in 365-day max temps is always greater than the corresponding anomaly in min temps. Did you download it from somewhere, or generate it yourself from the raw data? I’ve got all the daily records in a spreadsheet, so I guess I could also play around with some similar graphs. As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.

      As far as it being “adjusted” – well they do make the odd adjustment relating to accuracy of instruments, siting issues, etc. but these are mostly way back in the past. There are enough people keeping a close eye on the readings from the 3 stations to ensure that they can’t make any unnecessary current adjustments. I mean other bloggers, etc. – not just other Met Office types.

      Incidentally, I see your graph only goes to the end of February. By the end of June (assuming it comes in at around 14 deg, as looks likely), the 365-day anomaly will be down to around 0.75 deg C.

      Regards

      Richard

  47. You are trying to draw a conclusion about Global Average Temperatures from 10 years of data across only the Continental US – are you serious?

    Technically speaking, using individual months as start and end points for the regression is not very convincing. Perhaps using the annual average will give a more convincing result?

    Also you need to calculate the confidence intervals and state them to show the statistical significance of the trend.

    • The NOAA site also provides a table with the monthly data. So calculating the annual average for each year is easy. Using the annual average on Excel, I get the same “slight negative trend”. But there is NO trend. The R squared value for the linear regression is 0.024!
      I agree, 10 years is a short period and certainly nobody is trying to pass these data as a global average, but the fact that there is no trend and even if the period is short what is much more important is that during this period atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Lua shows the continuous linear increase. Yet, we have no corresponding increase in temperature anomalies.
      If this continues for another 5 years or so we will need to ask some serious questions.
      We already have no corresponding increase in global temperature anomalies for the time series from two different satellite sources for the past 17 years or so.

      • rd50.

        No trend in the warming? That is probably correct. But whether the “no trend” is statistically significant is still a question that has not been answered in the article.

        Regardless of what the trend at CONUS is it is not possible to come to a conclusion about the global average temperature trend and the hiatus which is what the article is trying to do.

        Your assumption about the rising CO2 is incorrect. Who is claiming the global average temperature should track the CO2 concentration exactly? The point is it doesn’t, and that is the expected result as the physical relation is logarithmic not linear, the global climate system has a lot of lag due to the oceans, and the global average temperature is made up of several variable components not just the one due to CO2 warming.

        Not really sure why you suddenly change the subject to the satellite measurements. The USCRN does not contain satellite measurements, it is a surface record.

    • Well, this is what you wrote:

      “Your assumption about the rising CO2 is incorrect. Who is claiming the global average temperature should track the CO2 concentration exactly? The point is it doesn’t, and that is the expected result as the physical relation is logarithmic not linear, the global climate system has a lot of lag due to the oceans, and the global average temperature is made up of several variable components not just the one due to CO2 warming.”

      I made no assumption about the rising CO2. I don’t need to make any assumption. The actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 have been provided by NOAA. The data (you understand the data) on CO2 has been made available since 1958. No BS, no adjustments, no homoge… Period. Is this clear to you. Real solid data for CO2 has been available since 1958. No more and no less.
      Since you want to claim that CO2 is the culprit for global warning, then show the correlation YOU have obtained between these two variables, beginning from 1958 or the correlation that anybody has obtained.
      Waiting for your plot showing the relationship you want to claim.

      • rd50.

        You did indeed make an assumption about the rising CO2 and global average temperature change . This is what you said:

        “Yet, we have no corresponding increase in temperature anomalies.”

        Your assumption is the global average temperature should rise as CO2 rises, and the fact that it hasn’t over 10 years somehow falsifies the hypothesis.

        I will repeat what I said before; the climate scientists are not claiming the global average temperature will track CO2 concentrations exactly. The warming due to CO2 is one component of the global average temperature change, there are also other variables.

  48. harrytwinotter

    You write

    You are trying to draw a conclusion about Global Average Temperatures from 10 years of data across only the Continental US – are you serious?

    Technically speaking, using individual months as start and end points for the regression is not very convincing. Perhaps using the annual average will give a more convincing result?

    Also you need to calculate the confidence intervals and state them to show the statistical significance of the trend.

    Taking each of your points in turn.

    If you suspect the presentation was not “serious” then you need to state the reason(s) for your suspicion because your question is unspecific and, therefore, cannot be answered (Have you stopped beating your wife?).

    Using individual months as start and end points for the regression is the only possible procedure. If you think it is “not very convincing” then you need to state why. Indeed, your assertion that “Perhaps using the annual average will give a more convincing result?” is an untrue and unjustifiable assertion. And your posing the assertion as a possibility and a question says you cannot justify it.

    Yes, for completeness the the statistical significance of the trend needs to be stated. However, very importantly, the trend is slightly negative so the confidence limits of the trend will not alter the observation that the trend is not significantly different from zero; the ‘pause’ is observed.

    Richard

    • Richardscourtney.

      Back in your box. You must get tired of being wrong all the time. I do not bother to get into a pseudo-argument with you, all you want to do is deflect from my post.

      • harrytwinotter

        You have replied to my point-by-point rebuttal of your daft post by writing in total

        Richardscourtney.

        Back in your box. You must get tired of being wrong all the time. I do not bother to get into a pseudo-argument with you, all you want to do is deflect from my post.

        No, dear boy. I am NOT attempting to “deflect from your post”.
        On the contrary, I drew attention to each point in your post and showed it to be plain wrong.

        The only “pseudo-argument” is your reply that I have here quoted in full and you have presented in attempt to avoid admitting that I was right in my explanation of how your original post was plain wrong in each and every of its statements.

        Richard

        PS I will congratulate you in the improbable circumstance that you one day provide a post that is correct.

  49. I would also point out that the first data point on the graph is an anomaly of nearly +2F. I was very puzzled by this when I first saw it. I was thinking that if they were going to set up a new, pristine climate reference network, naturally they would start the data series with anomaly at 0 and go from there.

    Not so, instead they set the starting point for the USCRN data at the anomaly determined at that point from the USHCN network. They are thereby “polluting” the USCRN data with less pristine USHCN data in this way.

    I am not sure whether they will continue to use historic adjustments that are constantly being made to the USHCN data to thereby continue re-setting the starting point for the USCRN or whether it was a one-time thing.

    Either way, the latest anomalies from the USCRN data are nearly 2F below their starting point, even showing it as an anomaly of 0 is misleading.

    • The data does NOT contain the pressure observations – this must be a deliberate omission. One wonders why.

  50. Please pardon this follower of WUWT who is lacking a formal accreditation in any of the Sciences. I may not know of what I speak, so I beg your indulgences. From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12 I found this: “National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. USHCN data for January 1895 to August 2014 will remain available for historical comparison.”. A search of nClimDiv lead me to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/nclimdiv-maximum-and-minimum-temperature-data which is showing a near continuous increase in temperature. Digging further, to http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/noaas-climate-divisional-database: “This dataset replaces the previous Time Bias Corrected Divisional Temperature-Precipitation Drought Index. The new divisional data set (nCLIMDIV) is based on the Global Historical Climatological Network-Daily (GHCN-D) and makes use of several improvements to the previous data set. For the input data, improvements include additional station networks, quality assurance reviews and temperature bias adjustments.” Is this the travesty that you mentioned?

  51. This is analysis is poor. What Watts needs to show is a graph comparing the USCRN data with NOAA’s published temperatures at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

    As for the larger argument that there is a hiatus in global warming, you are cherry picking by ignoring the fact that the atmosphere only absorbs 2%-3% of all excess heat on the planet. The oceans absorb 93% of the heat. (http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf) If we look at ocean heat and ice melting, we see very clear signs that the planet is warming. In other words, you are ignoring the vast majority of the data which shows a clear warming trend.

    • “ignoring the fact that the atmosphere only absorbs 2%-3% of all excess heat on the planet. ”
      Except that land air temps are strongly regulated by ground temps, what do you think causes UHI?

  52. I don’t know if this has been said here but it would be interesting to compare this data with the latest GISS and NOAA US data for the same time period. It might give a good perspective of how the data adjustments differ (or don’t differ) from this pristine data.

  53. The decline in Germanys official yearly temperature data fron Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD). Unadjusted, and yearly as a single Number published – but never together as a graph – Is there a reason?

Comments are closed.