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:
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:
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:
Source: 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:
Note the NOAA watermark in the plot above.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets[]=uscrn¶meter=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:

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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Just for fun,snow and sun,wish i were there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3112474/Sun-snow-glaciers-Europe-finest-slopes-Southern-Hemisphere-great-summer-skiing.html
Great, there’s a flat trend over 3% of the earth’s surface.
So. You don’t like this? You have a problem with this?
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.
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?
And then there are the USHCN stations that have been inspected by surfacestations.org to meet the CRN #1 standard for quality of siting. Guess what: They are nicely spread around the US48, they show minimal warming, and they have been subjected to adjustments so that 83% of them had warming added into their records.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/
Well done.
Your submission was an interesting read.
It took me a while to read this and try to integrate this. Thank you.
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.
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.
Fiddling while Rome burns?
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.
Tom –
See Ron Clutz’s post above at June 14, 2015 at 4:14 pm.
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
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/images/nClimDiv_USCRN-AnnualDeps.png
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.
“other make up data.”
To make up the missing data.
A measured value is data. A manufactured value is a hypothesis.
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.
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:
For comparison:
Yep, those 10 year graphs are pretty neat eh?
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
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.
harrytwinotter
You write
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
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.
and Heat-waves are caused by FROZEN Jet-Stream that BLOCKS heat http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mg20727730_101-3_560.jpg
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.
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¶meter=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?
My apologies. I confused the USHCN dataset with the USRCN dataset.
“The Sky is Falling”, “The Sky is Falling”,” we need more Kool-Aid”, said the Educated Idiots!!
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?
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.
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?
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/LS_KAE_KO_Klimawandel_Deutschland_Teil1/Abbildung_4.jpg