‘Hidden’ NOAA temperature data reveals that 6 of the last 9 months were below normal in the USA – and NOAA can’t even get June right

A review of state-of-the-art climate data tells a different story than what NOAA tells the public.

While media outlets scream “hottest ever” for the world in June and July (it’s summer) and opportunistic climate crusaders use those headlines to push the idea of a “climate crisis” the reality is for USA is that so far most of 2019 has been below normal, temperature-wise.

Little known data from the state of the art U.S. Climate Reference Network (which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly “state of the climate” reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal, shown in bold below.

201810-0.18°F
201811-2.56°F
2018122.39°F
2019010.63°F
201902-3.15°F
201903-2.81°F
2019041.55°F
201905-1.13°F
201906-0.14°F

Above: Table 1, U.S. average temperature anomaly from October 2018 to June 2019. Full data file here

Note the below average value for June, 2019 at -0.14°F

The data, taken directly from NOAA’s national climate data page, shows not only that much of 2019 was below average, but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started.

Figure 1, U.S. average temperature anomaly from January 2005 to June 2019. Source of graph, NOAA, available here

The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was established to give the most accurate temperature readings compared to the old Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) which suffers from urban encroachment, siting problems, and a multitude of human induced inhomgeneities such as station moves, incomplete data, closed stations, and runway condition stations at airports that were never designed to report climate data.

Click for report

Readers here know of my work to highlight these problems, and as a result, there was a 2011 report by the GAO about the problems with the old COOP network. They investigated a subset of the larger COOP network (The USHCN) and said:

According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device— which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards.

NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agency wide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA’s information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements.

Source: GAO-11-800 August 31, 2011, Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network https://www.gao.gov/highlights/d11800high.pdf

NOAA’s response? Rather than fix it, they closed reporting the USHCN subset of COOP stations in 2012. They now say this on their climate data page:

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.

Source: https://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=2004&endyear=2019&month=12

Yet, while the USHCN was closed, and the data from it are no longer reported in the monthly and yearly NOAA climate reports, the problems identified in the USHCN persist in the larger COOP Network, of which several thousand stations remain:

Distribution of U.S. Cooperative Observer Network stations in the CONUS. U.S. HCN version 2 sites are indicated as red triangles. Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/introduction

All NOAA did was treat the visible symptoms we identified (by excising them), while leaving the larger disease uncured, and continuing to use the majority of data in it, data with the same sort of problems and inhomgeneities discovered in the USHCN subset. The USHCN was 1218 station out of over 8700 COOP stations, and that remaining data is used to calculate the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset used to report “official” temperature averages today. Basically all they did was sweep the problem under the rug, and report that they have algorithms to “fix” bad data.

In any other branch of science, in the stock market, or in criminal forensics, “bad” data would be thrown out as unreliable.

Meanwhile, perfectly good data gets ignored in favor of “fixed” bad data. NOAA says this about the new state-of-the-art Climate Reference Network network:

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.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn

The data from the rest of the world, as reported by NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network is largely composed of the same type of stations, with an equal to or even greater (due to lack of consistent quality control) set of data problems.

Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t seem to think the data from this state-of-the-art US Climate Reference Network is worth reporting to the public. A scan of the last 5 years of yearly and monthly “State of the Climate” reports has not a single mention of this high quality data, preferring to cite the data from the old COOP network instead, now repackaged as the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset.

In fact, for the June 2019 State of the Climate Report, NOAA is claiming that the US was 0.2F above average in June, when in fact the US Climate Reference Network reported the June data as below average at -0.14°F

The June contiguous U.S. temperature was 68.7°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average, ranking in the middle third of the 125-year record.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201906

So what is the correct US Temperature for June?

In May, 2019, there was also a disparity. USCRN reported the national average temperature as below average at -1.13°F

While NOAA’s “official” climate report said it was only about half that, reading warmer by 0.43°F:

For May, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 59.5°F, 0.7°F below the 20thcentury average and ranked in the bottom third of the 125-year record.

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201905

It seems NOAA can’t even agree on reporting what the actual temperature of the United States is on a monthly basis, using their own old and unreliable data, while neglecting to report the best data they have. Why?

That’s a travesty of government incompetence worth investigating.

One wonders if screaming headlines about “hottest ever” this month would even exist if the world had a global version of the U.S. Climate Reference Network where the data was quality controlled, and measurements taken far away from the human induced heat of urbanization.

Advertisements

162 thoughts on “‘Hidden’ NOAA temperature data reveals that 6 of the last 9 months were below normal in the USA – and NOAA can’t even get June right

      • I don’t know about Cambridge, but I know a little about Paris Montsouris, where the latest record high jumped from 40.2°C (1947) to 42.60C a few days ago. Not much of a change of UHI effect there, lately.

        • Fortunately Paris isn’t the whole world, although if you’re any indication they seem to think they are. We call that “chauvinism.”

        • > Paris Montsouris, where the latest record high jumped from 40.2°C (1947) to 42.60C a few days ago.

          You mean shortly after the end of WW-II that devasted the population and economy? And you don’t think there has been any change in UHI since?

          • My God, he actually said 1947, didn’t he? 72 years with no change in UHI. My delusion detector is stuck past redline.

        • François said: « Not much of a change of UHI effect there, lately.»
          UHI increased in Paris-Montsouris. In 1947 the peripheral highway (boulevard périphérique) didn’t exist and Montsouris was still near the abandoned fortifications. Furthermore, min-max mercury thermometers have been replaced by Pt100 fast response, frequently sampled thermometers. The +2,4°C difference is probably the result of those two changes.
          At the isolated rural station in Mont Ventoux, the 1947 summer record was only exceeded by 0.2°C (with perhaps as much as +2°C resulting from the replacement of mercury thermometers by Pt100).

      • Since 2014 it’s told to change the location, because of irregular measurments (3k higher than surrounding stations) , but the record has been accepted by DWD, German Weather Orgnisation.
        One reason:
        Station in question

        The questionable peak in Lingen had put the DWD in an awkward situation. “The DWD has a long history of problems there, but if they did not recognize the measured value, climate change deniers would have used it to sow skepticism against all science.”

        Source (german)

    • the chart is data from 2014 with only projections to 2019.
      it says it right on the source page linked: “”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.

      the real data is here: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data

    • “A site a couple of miles outside Cambridge meanwhile read 1.6C less”

      If you mean the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, it reported 38.1°C, relative to the Bot Gardens 38.7°C.

  1. Anthony,
    It would be nice if the surfacestations.org database would get out of maintenance mode.
    Also, the note about an attack is undated so I don’t know whether to still expect safe mode.

  2. Some USCRN data sets include soil temperatures down to around 100 cm especially in agricultural areas (La Junta, CO) for planning seed sowing. Comparison of these soil and air temperatures reveals a rather interesting phenomenon.

    As the earth rotates beneath the sun and at dawn the air (at 1.5 m) and soil warm up together, peaking around noon, then the air then cools rapidly (low heat capacity) while the soil (high heat capacity) cools slowly until the air is cooler than the soil. The air remains cooler than the soil until the following dawn. That evidence refutes the notion that the air warms the ground.

    The sun warms the surface, the surface warms the air.

    RGHE goes belly up!!

    • Interesting about soil temperatures – I’ve always thought that if the atmosphere were actually warming then heat must be creeping into the soil/ground. The fact that soil temps haven’t been prominently used to validate the ‘warming’ atmosphere fuels my skepticism.

      • There’s an isotherm down around 50 feet where the heat upwelling from the core meets the solar downwelling into the soil.

        Trending these soil temps through the seasons is illuminating especially when the surface freezes followed by an air warming sunny day.

        The data is easy to load & paste into Excel and then trend all kinds of combinations.

    • While I certainly don’t have research quality thermometers or data, and I am mostly in a suburban environment, I have been noticing daily temperatures both subjectively and from a number of different thermometers for the last couple of decades. Summer temperatures as measured by my body, and by all thermometers to which I have access, peaks at around 6 PM during the hottest eight weeks. That builds from around 3 PM hottest in spring and to about 3 PM hottest as the autumn proceeds. In the middle of summer it has been still at 100F at midnight; 80 to 90 at midnight isn’t unusual.

      I have done much hiking in the (relatively) nearby mountains for years, often from before the last of the snow is completely gone until it starts snowing again. I strongly prefer above 6000 feet. That altitude is overall more interesting, definitely cooler, and free of poison oak. While I have never had thermometer readings except from my car at start and end of hike, the daily temperature swings seem about the same, time wise, as down in the valley.

      Temperature is often a topic of causal conversation, especially when it exceeds 100 F for days on end. I don’t recall anyone , ever, who didn’t experience late afternoon as the hottest part of summer days. Any idea why this is different than the air vs soil mentioned (i.e. the air continues to heat for hours after noon)?

      • Maybe its not different? Everybody pays attention to air temperature but how often do you measure the ground temperature? Maybe the ground really is hot enough to keep warming the air past noon.

    • Nick – did you analyze the data with that result? Does the temperature peak around noon, or several hours later? On a different time scale, summer solstice marks the beginning of summer, the hottest days come much later…

      I agree that the surface warms the air.

      • The peak was a general comment. It could be refined. Might have been a little past noon.

        Did dozens of studies. Have a couple of typical PPTs. How to post or get to you? Could post on my LinkedIn site.

        I can provide instructions to prepare USCRN for Excel data tables.

      • https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html
        Open/save/print documentation file to get data column keys.
        Select the frequency: hourly, daily, monthly.
        Select the year.
        Select the station, e.g. La Junta, CO.
        A text field will appear.
        Open an Excel sheet.
        On the text field:
        Right click, “select all”
        Right click, “copy”
        In upper left Excel cell click, “paste”
        Go to Data tab, click “text-to-column”
        Select “delimited” & “next”
        De-select “tab” and select “space” & “next”
        Select “finish”
        Now you need to apply your Excel skills to organize, identify columns, etc.

        • Nick, a soil temperature peak around 1500 hrs agrees with what I was taught years ago, that the hottest part of the day is (usually) between 1400 & 1500.

          After 1500, the suns lowering elevation means that incoming radiation is travelling further through the atmosphere, resulting in cooling at ground level.

          • Well, traveling further through the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.

            It’s the oblique incidence that spreads the ISR contact patch over a larger area.

            Any solar engineer placing panels can explain.

          • Nick,
            “Well, traveling further through the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
            It’s the oblique incidence that spreads the ISR contact patch over a larger area.”

            Care to develop this?
            Intuitively, ray boorman sentence seems right. I mean, less chance to get your eyes burnt when looking at the sun post 1500 than between 1400 and 1500. And there is no oblique incidence involved. So there is less ISR coming to the surface, regardless of incidence on the surface itself. So the cooling post 1500 is both because more atmosphere to travel through and more spread due to increased incidence angle. No?

          • Romain,
            Suggest you Google some solar engineering articles about incidence angles.
            When the sun is straight over head or when you look straight at it the 1,368 W/m^2 rays arrive plane parallel and are the most intense. (Corrected for albedo as applicable.)

            Point a spot light straight at the wall, nice round spot.
            Now tilt it sideways, Notice how the patch becomes oval. Same light but spread over a larger area. That’s what happens to the sun when it strikes a spherical earth.

            The oblique surface receives fewer W/m^2. That’s why some solar panels have tracking mechanisms so they always point square toward the sun, maximum intensity.

          • Nick, thank you for your answer. I understand what you are saying. More surface for the same incoming flux = less energy per surface unit.
            My point was that you seem to dismiss the fact that, when the sun is not overhead, the incoming flux is already reduced BEFORE reaching the ground, as suggested by ray boorman.
            The solar panels, despite always facing the sun thanks to tracking mechanisms, will receive less sunlight/energy in late afternoon than at noon. Because sunlight will be absorbed /scattered/reflected by more atmosphere.

          • Romain,
            “Because sunlight will be absorbed /scattered/reflected by more atmosphere.”

            Under clear skies this is trivial. Absorbed? not so much. Place a radiometer perpendicular under a clear sky and the absorbed might be a few percent. Here again, reference solar engineering handbooks for calculating how many W/m^2 arrive, surf/ToA.

            And the atmosphere is ludicrous thin.

            A meter is 3.28 feet. A km is 3,280 feet. A mile is 5,280 feet a meter is 3,280/5,280 =0.62 miles.

            NOAA/NASA say the atmosphere ends around 100 km or 62 miles. Picture some nearby distance. Colorado Springs is about 65 miles. I commuted for four years. Contemplate in your mind’s eye what little distance that is. I could punch a Viper through it in under 20 minutes if it weren’t for gravity and my lack of a Viper.

            What’s more 99% of the atmospheric molecules are below 32 km, about 20 miles. It’s those molecules that do all the actual work, all the heavy lifting, scattering/reflecting etc.

            The sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air molecules.

            0.04% CO2 heats diddly.

          • Nick, thank you very much for your prompt answers and the link.
            Yes, slides 6 and 7 are exactly what I was referring to and what ray boorman was saying.
            You said “Well, traveling further through the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.”
            While from what I take from your link, it has an effect of about 100 W/m2 between 1200 and 1600. Compared to about 200 W/m2 difference between horizontal and normal irradiance (ISR spread in a larger area).
            So ok, the “thicker atmosphere” effect is only about half of the “surface spread” effect. But this is not “nothing”. But I am probably nitpicking, I think we are in agreement. Thank again for taking the time to answer me.

    • I’m not advocating any particular theory but science is supposed to consider all possibilities.

      Is it possible that the cooler air in these measurement sites is still radiating enough IR into the soil to make it heat even as the air itself is cooling? Perhaps the soil is just better at storing heat energy (which would not seem to fit the radiation increasing at the fourth power of the temperature increase theory)?

      I understand the general idea that temperature, via energy, doesn’t flow that way but it is also the case that radiation goes where it is pointed, regardless of temperature differences.

      • “Is it possible that the cooler air in these measurement sites is still radiating enough IR into the soil to make it heat even as the air itself is cooling?”

        Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!

        Well, yes the ground has more thermal mass and stores energy. That’s what trombe walls and rock & water filled barrels do in solar designs.

        “…radiation goes where it is pointed, regardless of temperature differences.”

        This is flat not so!!! Hot to cold – and NOTHING else!!

        Here is an experiment in the classical tradition that demonstrates clearly why BB radiation from the surface is not possible. BB requires a vacuum.

        https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

        • So, Nick, if there are IR emissions from the air, which seems to be considered true basic physics, and emission direction is random and more or less evenly distributed, which seems to be considered true basic physics, where does it go when the emission is in the direction of the ground?

          More generally, if any cool(er) objects radiates, how is that radiation prevented from reaching the hot(ter) object?

          I realize that if the ground is radiating more upward than the atmosphere is radiating downward, no net heating can occur — and if there is heating is should be momentary because any increase of temperature results in an increase in radiation (fourth power) but all that is irrelevant as to whether or not emissions reach the ground, about which you wrote
          “This is flat not so!!! Hot to cold – and NOTHING else!!”?

          • Andy,
            Two surface one hot & one cold left to their own devices, i.e. isolated.
            The hot will cool and the cold will warm until they reach equilibrium.
            Under no circumstances will the hot get warmer or the cold get colder.
            UNLESS – you insert work in the form of a refrigeration loop which moves energy from the cold to the hot.
            BTW pointing an IR instrument at the sky and claiming a temperature or power flux measurement is totally clueless about how these instruments function.
            Radiation by definition requires a surface. What surface is there in the sky?
            And what about emissivity?
            IR instruments are fabricated and calibrated assuming the sources are BB. That’s wrong. Apogee instructions actually warn the operator of this potential error.
            These text boxes kind of limit detailed discussion.

            Much of these debates revolves around defending the various alleged mechanisms contrived to explain how the atmosphere warms the earth ala greenhouse.
            As pointed out elsewhere the atmosphere does not warm the earth, it cools it ala reflective windshield panel.
            That explains why those explanations and mechanisms are so contentious. They “explain” what does not exist.

    • HERE> Enter your variables. You will see all averages are 1-2 degrees higher. We have been warming hard since 1997. The movement of chart slopes downward does not mean temps are falling. To fall, they would have to go below -0- into negative territory. Moreover, these are temperature anamolies which means the deviations if based on hot recent years 1997+ is going to be a lesser deviation (anamoly) than the years before 1997.
      [b]
      The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. [/b] (NOT USCRN).
      says so right on the page.

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=ytd&begyear=2019&endyear=2019&month=7

      • “…HERE> Enter your variables. You will see all averages are 1-2 degrees higher…”

        Higher than what and over which period?

        “…We have been warming hard since 1997. The movement of chart slopes downward does not mean temps are falling. To fall, they would have to go below -0- into negative territory…”

        A trend slope downward does indeed mean a trend of falling temps. And no, temps do not have to go into negative territory to be falling. You don’t understand the data and the charts.

        “…Moreover, these are temperature anamolies which means the deviations if based on hot recent years 1997+ is going to be a lesser deviation (anamoly) than the years before 1997…”

        Except that it doesn’t work that way on the site. The average temperature anomaly for July 2018 is 1.49 deg F if I do 1895-2018. If I do 1997-2018, it is still 1.49 deg F. The anomalies are calculated across the entire period from 1895. Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about on the site you link to.

        “…The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. [/b] (NOT USCRN).
        says so right on the page….”

        It also says it in the article above:

        “…National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv…”

        The whole point went right over your head, apparently. Maybe you should read it again since you clearly missed portions of it. Then again, it appears you are unable to comprehend it, anyhow, so you should probably skip it and get some remedial math and English.

      • This observation raises yet another concern about scientific mismanagement or misconduct with USCRN data.

        Imagine that you developed a new scientific instrument with far greater sensitivity than others available. Imagine that you wanted to begin a fresh new measurement record to serve as the gold standard for others to follow. You are THE reference now.

        In your field, Others tend to use anomalies to track and trend data, so you do the same.

        Now, instead of beginning your new gold standard measurement record at an anomaly of zero, you pollute it by using poorer quality data to set the starting point at +2.1 or something ridiculous. This leads future observers to conclude that a downward slope in the data does not correlate with a decrease in the measurement over time, but instead inexplicably shows a long run increasing trend.

        I vote for scientific misconduct, but perhaps you think it is mere incompetence?

    • July cold news-

      Snowfall and bitter cold hits Cape mountain ranges
      2½ ft of snow shuts down Argentina airport
      Another “Ship Of Fools” Runs Into 10-foot-Thick Ice
      Fifteen cold records broken in Queensland
      Russian city breaks 107-year-old cold record
      Snow more than 10 ft deep at Balea Lake
      Record cold in Slovakia
      Cold record in northwestern European Russia
      Puking Snow in the Aussie Alps
      Below average temperatures in Japan
      Another snow surprise in another Turkish city
      Record cold in Hungary
      July snow in Poland – Nobody expected this!
      July Snow in Romania
      Record cold in Brazil
      Well-below average cold in Europe July 7
      Several record lows in the Trans-Baikal Territory
      All-time record cold July temp in parts of Germany July 6,
      New all-time July cold record in the Netherlands
      Norway mountain passes closed due to snow and cold – In July

      Iceagenow

    • In the deep south summer is always hot. But this summer has been only a little hot. We even had some downright cool evenings where the air temp was about the same as AC inside. I dunno if this is AMO shifting into cool phase or if thats still a good 10-20 years out. We get a lot of ocean effects down here.

  3. It’s sad to see our host wholehearted adopting the word “normal” instead of average. This just in the alarmists favour.

    There is nothing “normal” about the average over some rather arbitrary 30y period. Calling the average “normal” implicitly accepts the notion that any change is abnormal. From there you have already planted the idea that is not of natural cause and therefore manmade.

    when the press report that June was 0.2 deg above normal, there is a smug “we told you so” behind the head lines. WUWT should be clearly be calling an average an average and emphasising that there is nothing more normal than deviations from the mean.

    Far from being “normal” , temperature being the same as the average value is a pretty damned rare occurrence.

    • Thank you. I’ve been bitching about the use of the word “normal” (by Environment Canada) supplanting “average” for years. I believe it’s a deliberate ploy to sway public perception.

    • Calling the average “normal” implicitly accepts the notion that any change is abnormal.

      In this case I’d say the opposite is true. The “normal” period is 1981 – 2010, the warmest three decades in the NOAA data so far.

      • No, MISuse of the word “normal” when it is actually “average” is complete nonsense, as it assumes ANY variation, in ANY direction, is “abnormal,” which is simply not the case.

        Ditto for the MIS use of “anomaly” which makes it sound, once again, like ANY “departure from average” is somehow “abnormal.”

        • I agree there are problems using words like normal or average without specifying the period used for the average. But my point was that using the most recent 30 years as the “normal” period is especially misleading as it’s a period already warmer than much of the last few hundred years at least. The problem is that no matter how much the climate changes you don’t notice it if you are only comparing the current temeratures to those of a few years ago – it just becomes the new normal.

          I’m not sure how you can discuss the current climate without comparing it to some base line.

    • Agreed. The endless use of such a nonsensical concept as a “normal” temperature (as if it exists) is a ridiculous and needless segue into an unnecessary and convoluted explanation about “normal” not really meaning “normal” (but rather referring to an arbitrarily selected 30-year period) and how “anomalies” (ANOTHER just plain stupid and misused term) aren’t really “anomalous” at all, just departures from the relatively meaningless “average.”

  4. I understand it is so cold in Siberia that they moved the thermometers indoors to both keep them from freezing and to make readings easier to take

  5. One wonders if we’d have screaming headlines about “hottest ever” this month would even exist if the world had a global version of the U.S. Climate Reference Network where the data was quality controlled, and measurements taken far away from the human induced heat of urbanization.

    Maybe. UAH

    I’m too busy at this moment to dig up the reference but … I seem to recall that old well-sited American surface stations show very little, or no, temperature increase over the past century. I wonder if anyone has dug into the satellite record to compare it with those stations. It could be that the modern warming is nowhere as uniform as the alarmists insist.

    • So the answer is to set up a world wide quality Climate Reference Network.
      It would be cheaper and more effective than any other solurion.
      We may well find the world is not warming at all!
      Unfortunately I can already hear the screams form the politicians and massive government departments funded to “mitigate climate change”.
      Not to mention the abuse from the government funded university based institutions dedicated to showing a “warming world”.
      Even if the temperature rise is only one third of what these groups have claimed (shown by the surfacestations.org analysis), then we do not need to waste the multi billions the politicians propose.

  6. How is the USCRN data handled? Who does the data analysis and archiving?

    Is there any danger that this data will become tampered with?

    In 10 or 20 years when it is still flat or cooling, will there be political pressure to make some adjustments when the truth does not fit a narrative? It certainly looks like NO cause for alarm !

    • There was recently a NOAA “quality corrected” raw data set released that reduces various area high temperatures (such as in the 1930s) and erases various area cooling trends recorded over decades, no?

  7. This is priceless

    ” but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started.”

    File this graph and conclusion, when ever you hear about some pine bark beetle, shifting growing zones, or tropical disease range moving. If the alarmist says it has gotten worse in the past 10-15 years in the USA, we can say with some confidence that the changes are not from a warmer climate.

  8. NOAA said the average GLOBAL temperature in June was 1.71 degrees above average. Since the USA only represents 6% of the land on earth, what is the problem here?

    • Methinks that may be the point of the story.

      The data from the rest of the world, as reported by NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network is largely composed of the same type of stations, with an equal to or even greater (due to lack of consistent quality control) set of data problems.

    • With another problem Donald being that the US represents a pretty huge land area upon which increasing carbon dioxide is having no effect wrt temperature.

      • The United States is a special place! We have managed to neutralize the evil effects of CO2 over the United States which keeps our temperatures much lower than the rest of the world. 🙂

        • Not really. Since 1979, US temperatures have been increasing at about 0.26°C / decade, quite a bit faster than global temperatures.

          • That’s only a trend, starting from the coldest weather the US has had in quite a long time. Besides, when I do the calculation using NOAA’s GHCN Monthly summaries of TAVG, I get only 0.18° C.

            If I start from Jan 2000, the rate is only 0.15° C. Move up to seven years ago, and the rate from 2012 to now is practically zero.

            So, for the past three-quarters of a decade there has been no statistically significant warming in the contiguous US at all. It’s ridiculous to claim there’s an impending climate disaster, when nothing’s been happening since the start of Obama’s second term.

          • I’ll double check my figures when I get a chance, but NOAA’s own chart shows a trend since 1979 of 0.48°F / decade, which is about 0.26°C / decade.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/6/1895-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1979&lasttrendyear=2019

            I used 1979 as the start point just to compare with satellite data, but you get similar results if you start in 1970 or 1990. Certainly, if you look at the last couple of decades the rate is much lower, but this is starting from quite a high point.

          • ” Move up to seven years ago, and the rate from 2012 to now is practically zero.”

            Of course, 7 years is a meaningless period to be looking at trends. I make the rate of change since the start of 2012 as -0.39° / decade. Far from being practically zero temperatures have been plummeting the last 7.5 years. But start in 2013 and the rate is +0.83°C / decade.

    • The problem is same what “they” are screaming about MWP. “It wasn´t global, because it wasn´t warm everywhere at the same time!”.
      They are right, of course. But today it´s different, because we use global average now. It´s not warm everywhere, but you must pick cherries to get the right answer.

  9. Regarding “In fact, for the June 2019 State of the Climate Report, NOAA is claiming that the US was 0.2F above normal in June, when in fact the US Climate Reference Network reported the June data as below normal at -0.14°F

    The June contiguous U.S. temperature was 68.7°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average, ranking in the middle third of the 125-year record.
    Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201906 “:

    So, the .2 degree F above normal was .2 degree F above the 20th century average, while the .14 degree F below normal was according to a dataset (USCRN) whose baseline can’t be its 20th century average because USCRN started in 2005.

    • Sorry, Klipstein, your’e wrong on all counts.

      NOAA does in fact apply the same baseline to USCRN, so that it can be compared to the US Climate Division.

      SEE: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=12

      And notice that we now have THREE different values reported by NOAA for June now.

      USCRN -0.14°F
      US Climate Divison: -0.29°F
      State of the Climate: +0.20°F

      So tell me, which number is the correct one? Note: your personal opinion doesn’t count, which one is correct from NOAA?

      • Just a comment: those are not temperatures, they are calculated differences from some baseline. How each is calculated, and what is the baseline for each, could readily make for differences. Without enough detail information it isn’t possible to say much of anything.

        • The State of the Climate states the CONUS average as 68.7°F, and comments that that is 0.2°F above the twentieth century CONUS average. The USCRN and ClimDiv numbers are relative to the WMO standard 1981-2010 period.

          • Nick Stokes: If USCRN anomaly is with reference to 1981-2010, then how correct is it for one to argue that USCRN anomaly according to such a baseline that is mostly pre-USCRN measurements is correct, by someone who argues that USCRN has a different warming rate than the dataset from the authority that “established” the baseline? For that matter, the author of this article stated that the .2 degree F positive anomaly according to the dataset he was criticizing was with reference to 20th century average, not 1981-2010.

          • “by someone who argues that USCRN has a different warming rate than the dataset from the authority that “established” the baseline”
            Well, that isn’t me. But as I noted below, NOAA in the notes to the graph explain how they do it:
            “So as not to compare apples and oranges, the departures of nClimDiv and the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) values from normal values for each network are compared rather than the absolute values. The 30 years from 1981 through 2010 provide the basis for the normal period for each month and network. Data exist for nClimDiv from 1895 to present, so a normal is simply the 30-year average of the gridded data. USCRN observations since commissioning to the present (4-9 years) were used to find relationships to nearby COOP stations and estimate normals at the USCRN sites using the normals at the surrounding COOP sites derived from full 1981-2010 records (Sun and Peterson, 2005). The normal values for each month are then subtracted from each monthly temperature average to create anomalies or departures from normal that can be compared between networks over time. “

            But of course trying to relate USCRN to a 20th century base would be a real stretch.

          • But of course trying to relate USCRN to a 20th century base would be a real stretch.

            Not just a stretch, but a blatant counterfeit.

      • Regarding “Sorry, Klipstein, your’e wrong on all counts.

        NOAA does in fact apply the same baseline to USCRN, so that it can be compared to the US Climate Division.”:

        How is a baseline of 20th century average of one dataset to be argued as the baseline of another dataset that starts in the 21st century by someone who argues that their warming rates are different?

      • Anthony,

        I think part of the problem is everyone pretends one of the numbers is the “right” number. But what are the margins of error associated with each? Are there overlaps for any of them? I feel comfortable the USCRN is our best measurement at this time as it is not a processed number as I understand it. But even it has to have a margin of error associated with it.

  10. [P]erfectly good data gets ignored in favor of “fixed” bad data.

    That has been the M.O. of “climate science” ever since the CAGW trope was born. As long as the putative need for a panoply of “adjustments” is accepted, the “data” will conform to the narrative. After decades of dealing with apparent bureaucratic incompetence in Asheville, I can no longer believe it’s simply that.

  11. Anthony – do you have a comment on this issue of weather station numbers as posted today over at Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone:

    https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NOAA-stations-number-of.png

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/30/two-european-professors-ipcc-climate-modeling-methodology-opens-door-to-fake-conclusions-manipulations/

    It’s an old story and a little OT but declining station numbers in an era of climate obsession seems very odd.

    • I have reached the same conclusion. With CAGW requiring massive economic upheaval in a short time you would think massive ACCURATE data would be a high priority.

      Declining numbers of accurate stations reeks of fishy.

  12. Above normal. Below average. Well within operating parameters.

    Too hot. Too cold. Never just right.

  13. A review of state-of-the-art climate data tells a different story than what NOAA tells the public.

    Unless I’m mistaken about the base period used for USCRN (1981 – 2010), there doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference between it and the official NOAA figures for contiguous USA. If anything the official values are slightly lower.

    Month NOAA USCRN
    201810 -0.44°F -0.18°F
    201811 -2.71°F -2.56°F
    201812 2.31°F 2.39°F
    201901 0.74°F 0.63°F
    201902 -3.58°F -3.15°F
    201903 -2.86°F -2.81°F
    201904 1.08°F 1.55°F
    201905 -1.30°F -1.13°F
    201906 -0.31°F -0.14°F

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/all/6/1895-2019?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1981&lastbaseyear=2010

    • When you look at the average temperature bar graph it makes you want to yawn about the whole thing

  14. If you want anything to change, you have to identify individuals who are accountable for poor data. NOAA is a name behind which too many are able to hide. Don’t let anyone hide. Someone is responsible for those data. Name him or her.

    • You guys are far from scientists. Go play outside and stop trying to be data analysts!
      You’re comments are amateurish – leave science to scientists.
      The world is warming. Duh. Go waste your time trying to debunk something more complex than air temperature. Like maybe the effects on our land from sucking oil out of the ground for hundreds of years. Or how about sea level rise?? I’m sure you think that’s fake news too!

      (Then YOU are an alleged scientist, who can make these unsupported disparaging statements to people, some here who are actual scientists or have a significant science background, and be credible in doing it, when all you did was look foolish and immature in doing it) SUNMOD

      • Rich, well done, you’ve just revealed yourself to be a fool to a substantial number of people.

  15. “In fact, for the June 2019 State of the Climate Report, NOAA is claiming that the US was 0.2F above average in June”
    No, as the displayed quote shows, they say it is 0.2F above the 20th Century average. In fact they state the average in absolute 68.7°F; the comparison with 20th century is a comment. The NOAA has been doing this in their annual reports for years, believing that it is a figure their readers can most easily relate to. Whether that is so or not, they state it quite explicitly.

    The other numbers quoted are relative to the standard WMO period of 1981-2010. I don’t know why the simple issue of what base period an average refers to causes so much trouble here. Explaining that in their background to the graph, they say:

    “So as not to compare apples and oranges, the departures of nClimDiv and the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) values from normal values for each network are compared rather than the absolute values. The 30 years from 1981 through 2010 provide the basis for the normal period for each month and network. Data exist for nClimDiv from 1895 to present, so a normal is simply the 30-year average of the gridded data. USCRN observations since commissioning to the present (4-9 years) were used to find relationships to nearby COOP stations and estimate normals at the USCRN sites using the normals at the surrounding COOP sites derived from full 1981-2010 records (Sun and Peterson, 2005). The normal values for each month are then subtracted from each monthly temperature average to create anomalies or departures from normal that can be compared between networks over time. “

    As some have noted, relative to the 1981-2010 period, the USCRN figure for June (-0.14F) was actually higher than the ClimDiv figure (-0.29F).

    • Ah Nick defender of bad data and arbitrary baselines, the issue is simply this: NOAA publishes three values, and nobody can say with absolute certainty which one is the right one. They are all constructs based on choices.

      Climate science data seems to be mostly opinions and choices. Absolute data, rather than anomaly data, doesn’t have these problems.

      Of course, nobody gets worried when looking at absolute data, it isn’t scary enough.

      • ” NOAA publishes three values, and nobody can say with absolute certainty which one is the right one.”
        The values they published were -0.14°F for USCRN, -0.29°F for ClimDiv, and 68.7°F for the ConUS as an absolute average. In publishing the latter, they commented that it was 0.2°F above the 20th century average. That is a clear and separate comparison. You can compare to anything you want. The USCRN and ClimDiv figures in fact differ by only 0.15°F.

        Just repeating what they actually said:
        “The June contiguous U.S. temperature was 68.7°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average, ranking in the middle third of the 125-year record.”

        • Typical apologist obfuscation

          Which value is the “right” one Nick?

          That 68.7F absolute value is based on the crappy old COOP network they claim they can “fix”. So I don’t trust it.

          If they had a lick of sense, they’d throw out the COOP data rather than trying to fix it, and just go with CRN data, which in my opinion is the only trustworthy surface data on the planet. The rest is just a concoction of errors, assumptions, and in the case of GISS, “special sauce”.

          • ” they’d throw out the COOP data rather than trying to fix it, and just go with CRN data”
            With just USCRN they would have only 15 years of data. And be ignoring a huge number of measurements around the country. The fact is, USCRN and ClimDiv give almost identical results over the period of USCRN.

            I can just imagine the complaints of “hidden NOAA data” if they scrapped the ClimDiv record.

        • Nick,

          You are correct that they define their baseline. They did it in May, too, and I suspect it is part of what they do to obfuscate what the data is showing. Using a 125 year record is done nowhere else, and the 20th Century average starts just post-Little Ice Age, with much lower temps than today, and so the average is lower and they can make the useless statement that June 2019 was 0.2F warmer than the 20th Century average. Big deal.

          They are just bmasking the fact that the decade of the 1930’s is still probably the warmest in the CONUS, and warmer than the last decade, comparing 1929-1938 vs 2009-2018. While I can’t guarantee that is true for the US as a whole, I recently was able to show that is exactly the case for Ithaca, NY, to the consternation of a bunch of folks at a climate alarmist class at Cornell, which conveniently hosts the NRCC, Northeast Region Climate Center.

          Drawing a line for the CONUS absolute average (68.5F) through the US temperature record would most likely intersect in the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s, around 1960, and 1980’s. So June 2019 is as warm as it probably was in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 80’s… very scary. But that’s not close to what the narrative is about.

          Anthony, very nice meeting you last week. BobM.

          • Bob,
            “They are just masking the fact that the decade of the 1930’s is still probably the warmest in the CONUS”
            How are they doing that? They are just comparing to a familiar period that does include the 1930’s.

            The thing about quoting an average in absolute T is that it isn’t very meaningful. People don’t know whether 67.8°F is warm or cool for a CONUS June. So they try to relate it to something that people might consider as normal, and they have chosen 20th century.

          • Nick,

            “They are just comparing to a familiar period “…

            But it is not a familiar period, weather-wise, certainly not the earliest decades. I would conjecture that most of us have experienced roughly half or less of 20th Century weather, and what we are experiencing now is just not that remarkable.

            Sure, “People don’t know whether 67.8°F is warm or cool for a CONUS June”, but NOAA could inform them very easily. I disagree that “The thing about quoting an average in absolute T is that it isn’t very meaningful”. People easily relate to an absolute T. What they don’t relate to is an anomaly in hundredths of a degree based upon an average from 1951-1980, which is even more arbitrary.

            A simple statement such as “the average June temperature for the last 100 years was X, and June 2019 is Y, and including the high-low range would, to my mind, be much more informative for the vast majority.

        • 0.2°F above the 20th century average.

          And THAT is climate panic! Oh boy, soo scary, in cooling world.

          • That’s one month in one country. There was climate panic in the US during the 1930s, yet June 1935 was about a degree cooler than this June at 0.85°F below the 20th century average. One month doesn’t tell you everything.

  16. Anthony, Mods:

    I would have liked to put up my take on this USCRN, trend of 0.057 deg/decade.
    We have not been able to put up images or graphics for a long time.
    Is there any thought to getting a website format which supports all the old features we used to enjoy?
    There was much value in posting our own take on things. I feel that WUWT was much stronger and vastly more interesting for the lively debates which followed. Now with the website updating only once per hour, even holding a conversation is no longer practical. The whole website seems much impoverished without all features we used to interact together.
    Any News?

  17. Well, yeah, June was slightly below “normal” being in the 60s daytime and 40s at night, with an occasional move to about 71F. I keep track of things in my area, as it’s more pertinent than the larger continental area.

    Most of the cooler temps for June this year and last year are due to cold air coming off Lake Michigan from the north. It’s not all that unusual, just delays my interest in wearing lighter summer clothing. Humidities were pretty average, and there was LOTS of rain after the end-of-April snowstorm. Since this is Year #2 contiguous to Year #1 of this cooler weather, it’s also noteworthy that during the first week of July – as with 2018 – the weather got hot and the heat wave lasted about 3.5 weeks, and we’ve returned to nice, cool low 70s daytime weather.

    All that rain sure did make the sweet corn sweeter.

    So what was the problem, again? Oh – yeah, NOAA doesn’t want to deal with the truth, or something like that? Just asking, to be sure I understand that part. Maybe some day that will change.

    • Just a side note: the weather forecast (from NWS local) was for mid to upper 80s this week. It has since changed to 70s from now through Tuesday next week. Dew points are consistently in the 60s overall.

      The cooler weather is nice, but humidities are kind of low. We need rain now. There is NO dew on the plants or grass in the mornings.

  18. June was cooler than normal when the raw data were measured, but warmer than normal after the data was massaged (i.e. fudged) in late July.

  19. I care not about record heat or cold where I am not living. I care about trends. Records will always be set because we have so little data (100 years of data is minuscule). It is the trend that matters, not today’s temperature.

    It is likely that there is never a “flat trend” of any significant length, although using an average might produce one (such as the top portion of a curve where low temperatures on both ends are mixed with high temperatures in the middle). I believe nature is always changing it’s mind (i.e. lot’s of cycles that affect temperature).

    Every city will have it’s own UHI effect, and as long as the city grows, the UHI of that city will change. So it’s pointless to try to measure a natural trend inside a city, or even to compare trends between cities. There is just too much noise to be useful.

    Use well situated stations that are kept in good repair. Keep good records. And use the raw data from such stations to prevent human bias from creeping in. This will measure the natural trend.

  20. From the article: “One wonders if screaming headlines about “hottest ever” this month would even exist if the world had a global version of the U.S. Climate Reference Network where the data was quality controlled, and measurements taken far away from the human induced heat of urbanization.”

    As commiebob said above: “How about UAH” the satellite temperature data. If NOAA used UAH as the temperature chart of record, instead of the bastardized Hockey Stick they use, there wouldn’t be numerous “Hottest Year Evah!” claims from NOAA.

    The reason for that is because the UAH chart shows 1998 as the second-warmest year between 1998 and 2016, so all those NOAA claims about the year 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or 2015 are all incorrect if going by the UAH chart. The only year that is warmer than 1998 subsequent to 1998, is the year 2016, which was 0.1C warmer than 1998, a statistical tie.

    NOAA bastardized 1998 and turned it from the most significant, El Nino, warm year since the 1930’s, and reduced it to insignificance in order for them to be able to make these “hotter and hotter” claims. They did this bastadization of 1998 right in front of all of our eyes. I think the pause might have been one impetus for them. They somehow needed to show that things were continuing to warm, so they did what they did earlier and cooled the past to make the present look warmer. Devious little climate scientists, aren’t they.

    The UAH chart puts the lie to the “hotter and hotter” meme. “Hotter and Hotter” is NOAA-generated propaganda.

    Here’s the UAH chart. See how many “hottest years evah!” you can find between 1998 and 2016. The answer is none. None of those years are as warm as 1998, according to UAH. The only time NOAA could claim a “hottest year evah!” was 2016, and that by 0.1C over 1998. The current global temperatures, three years after 2016, are currently about 0.4C cooler than 2016. You can see that on the UAH chart, too.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2019_v6.jpg

    There’s a lot of fraud going on at NOAA and NASA Climate. On government time and using taxpayer money.

    Basing arguments on NOAA and NASA climate data is a meaningless exercise. How can anyone have any confidence in their numbers after watching what they have been doing to manipulate the temperature record for all these years? I certainly have zero confidence in anything they put out. They have an agenda, and it’s not science, it’s politics. They are pushing a storyline.

  21. I’m not very good with databases but it is very easy to adjust data sets, curves, trends etc. to fit reality as you see it, whatever the numbers are it will become fact after while when no one remembers (or cares) where it came from in the first place. QA? Who QA’s data even if they know and or care about it’s relevance? I’ve paid a well meaning lab (who wanted more business) a few grand to do something as simple as determine specific heat of a simple water based solution and they screwed it up, my simple guess based on a gross heat balance was closer to actual fact. So, even well meaning QA is problematic, not too mention the rest of the humans gathering the data. Gets only exponentially worse when everyone starts looking at it, Heisenberg raises his ugly head and the greediest common denominator holds sway (more taxes anyone?). The only way to know the future is to survive long enough to experience it…but…you must have a high tolerance for stupidity along the way.

  22. Anthony, good article. Measurement station problems were what drew me to WUWT in the first place, and like you, I believe are still a major soft point for any climate discussions.

    Your article could benefit from a flow chart to show the relationships of the various datasets.

  23. Not a mathematician here, but– aren’t we missing a real basic consideration? If some reported datum is +/- some value different than the mean, isn’t the real question one of whether or not that datum is within 2 SD of the mean? Is a home run into the upper deck really better than one into the first row of seats? “Normal” is normal.

  24. The USHCN was 1218 stations out of over 8700 COOP stations, and that remaining data is used to calculate the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset used to report “official” temperature averages today.

    …not a single mention of this high quality data, preferring to cite the data from the old COOP network instead, now repackaged as the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset.

    Which leaves me a bit confused. Is the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset just the old USHCN data under a new name (and reorganized into geographical areas)? We at least knew where to get the locations and metadata of the USHCN stations. Who has a link to such information for the Divisional Dataset?

    For whatever it’s worth, probably very little, I agree with Ananymoose’s comment above:
    It would be nice if the surfacestations.org database would get out of maintenance mode.
    If the Divisional Dataset is using the same stations, then the work that has been done here is still relevant.

  25. Last summer I visited the Turnbull NWR near Cheney, WA., home of one of the three CRN sites in Washington State. Asked a NWR staff person if I could walk over to the array and take some photos, and they were not concerned. (Possibly because they knew nothing about it.) Interesting setup, certainly sited better than the AWOS surrounded by pavement at Spokane Intl Airport 17 miles north. We are all familiar with UHI effect, but I predict complaints soon about the “cool bias” at CRN locations. Yesterday (7/29/19), Turnbull CRN site had a low of 37F. Spokane International Airport’s low was 58F.

  26. Given that CRN is great and the other stations are crap
    we have the following test.

    Compare the great to the crap

    Should see a difference.

    nope

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=12

    nope

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=7

    Funny thing. I just finish a roject comparing all CRN to all the urban neighbors within 40km.

    answer. Nothing to see.

    • Yes, and the start of the USCRN record happens to coincide roughly with “the Pause” that Warmists spent a decade or more denying existed, until the data became too overwhelming to ignore.

      If the advent of USCRN is now keeping the serial adjusters honest, that’s a step in the right direction.

    • Stephen,
      I think there is something to see, but I am not sure I can explain it.
      Your plots are too busy to see what is going on in the comparison. Try this one instead:-
      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=12mo&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=6

      These are in effect 12-month trailing averages to June posted for each year from 2006 onwards. The excellent match of the early years 2006 to 2013 suggest that there is no systematic problem with choice of monthly baseline for anomaly calculation. (This can be readily confirmed by running out each of the plots for one month averages of the individual calendar months.)
      However, the graph shows the appearance after 2014 of a significant (systematic?) difference amounting to about 0.2 deg F in the annual averages – with ClimDiv < CRN. This seems like the wrong way round to support Anthony's narrative, but I am puzzled that it is there at all.

  27. It serves to illustrate that in climate pseudo-science ‘bad’ data are in fact the good data and ‘good, reliable’ data are the rotten ones. You just call them, the good data, ‘discordant’ as Mann did with the thermometer record and leave it out.

  28. Three different ‘official climate science’ temperature anomalies published, showing differing negative and positive anomaly values, unequivocally demonstrate there is no ‘settled science’ to be had from the fraudulent climate change industry. And the usual climate alarmist trolls are offering flaccid equivocations to evade the blunt and unarguable failure of their much ballyhooed fraud. Pathetic – all the way ’round.

    Enjoy the beautiful and highly variable summer weather, folks! Winter, like the next phase of continent spanning glaciers, is certainly coming….

  29. “The data, taken directly from NOAA’s national climate data page, shows not only that much of 2019 was below average, but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started”

    Well yes, but so does the ClimDiv data set. In fact, the USCRN data set warmed up by about 0.2°F vs. the ClimDiv data set. So the USCRN shows even more warming (or less cooling) since 2005.

  30. Anthony– Can you work with Dr Spencer to obtain the monthly CONUSA satellite temperature data for 2019 to compare it with the anomalies from USCRN?

  31. somewhat off topic:
    Oscillations of the baseline of solar
    magnetic feld and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale (V. V. Zharkova, S. J. shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova) Received: 11 January 2019, Accepted: 4 June 2019 Published: 26 06 2019

    Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic feld associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the
    other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there
    is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely
    correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand
    these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic feld variations
    backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confrm strong oscillations of solar activity in
    regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350–400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double
    solar dynamo. In addition, oscillations of the baseline (zero-line) of magnetic feld with a period of
    1950± 95 years (a super-grand cycle) are discovered by applying a running averaging flter to suppress
    large-scale oscillations of 11 year cycles. Latest minimum of the baseline oscillations is found to coincide
    with the grand solar minimum (the Maunder minimum) occurred before the current super-grand cycle
    start. Since then the baseline magnitude became slowly increasing towards its maximum at 2600 to be
    followed by its decrease and minimum at ~3700. These oscillations of the baseline solar magnetic feld
    are found associated with a long-term solar inertial motion about the barycenter of the solar system and
    closely linked to an increase of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature in the past two centuries. This
    trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the
    terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

    Whats about peer review ??
    Worth to discuss ?

  32. I live by the Atlantic Ocean. My car’s reading of the outside temperature declined by 8 degrees in the 10 minutes it took me to drive from a point several miles inland.

  33. Good to know I am not the only one who notices these kinds of discrepancies.

    I think it might also be worth discussing topics similar to ones brought forth by research papers like these: https://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/unit/publications/PDFfiles/2538.pdf

    The paper finds that rainfall has intensified very slightly over the past 59 years and of course the explanation is climate change (in their defense anthropogenic/man-made climate change wasn’t actually mentioned in the paper).

    While their data shows an increase in rainfall it’s barely significant and certainly not anything to be alarmed about in my opinion especially living in the region. Page 3 figure 1c and 1d kind of sum up the reality of the situation. The dataset starts in 1961 with around 10mm of precipitation over the 11 year average and by 2017 there is around 30mm of rainfall over an 11 year average but the introduction and conclusions that climate change and temperature are directly linked to more precipitation ignores the 30mm rainfall average in the mid 1980’s when temperatures were apparently below the anomaly.

    I lived in Phoenix at the turn of the millennium and apparently at this site some 80 miles southeast of Phoenix they were recording below average rainfall… But not in Phoenix as I recall!

    As mentioned Figure 1d shows that annual and average temperatures were well below the temperature anomaly in the mid 1960’s through the mid 1970’s and yet rainfall in this region was much higher than normal during the same period of time which kind of obliterates their assumptions that higher average temperatures lead to more rain. On top of that total precipitation in 1966 comes up just about 2 inches shy of the 2015 record on the graph. In fact just by looking at those graphs it appears that higher annual rainfall totals only recently coincide with higher annual temperatures since around the year 2010. Even in the early 80’s there was a huge spike in total precipitation but the temperature was still clearly below the temperature anomaly according to the data and the averages bare that out as well.

  34. Germane to this discussion is R. Geiger’s book “The Climate Near the Ground” It is available in the internet. Look for climatenearthegr032657mpb.pdf

    The book is a superb text about climate measurements above and below the ground. The illustrations are informative and imaginative. The prose is exquisite and wonderfully crafted. I dug it up after seeing Dr Jim Steele recommend it.

    If I was king, I’d make the climate whoppers read it out loud to each other. And then make them repeat the measurements. And then discuss the measurements. In coherent English.

  35. Hear in Australia the Golden rule about temp stations is they must be in a Stephenson screen and no reforestation or deforestation can occur within 200m of the site. So what did the BOM do here in Melbourne? Moved the site to skyscraper city and right opposite a river. Jeez you couldn’t even make this stuff up. Maybe they thought one would cancel out the other.

  36. With the media constantly chirping about Heat! Hot! Hottest EVAH!, don’t most people think to themselves, realize the weather changes quite a bit, and go back to looking for the baseball scores?

    These endless debates about temperature data contribute what to World Peace and Prosperity?

    Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, The Pause,

    This is the Information Age. Trained engineers who understand the rules of Data realize this is nothing more than Sturm and Drang.

    Meaningless. You should all just stop, try to remember the rules of Significant Digits from your undergrad education. Except for Mosher who clearly has never studied this.

    If is is hotter than it used to be, most people would notice this. It is not….

  37. Of course: when processing temperature time series, I’m a simple layman compared with persons working within institutions like NOAA or… BEST!

    Nevertheless I made a test based as usual on my preferred source, the GHCN daily data set (because it is really raw):
    – extract, out of the entire data set, all stations located within CONUS (i.e. US minus Alaska and Hawai);
    – extract, out of the CONUS data subset, all stations flagged ‘CRN’;
    – compare the two subsets’ series within their common period (I started with 2004), with 2009-2018 as reference period for anomaly computation.

    Here is the result:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zg9M-GZwNoIBln404Ay0voAL8V4PmSdK/view

    This is a comparison of (in the mean for 2004-2019)
    – 130 CRN stations located within 70 cells of a 2.5 ° grid
    with
    – 6500 CONUS stations located within 170 grid cells.

    The linear estimates for 2004-2019, in °C / decade
    – CRN: 0.36 ± 0.16
    – CONUS: 0.27 ± 0.15

    The reason why the CRN set average shows a higher trend than all CONUS stations you easily can see when looking at their respective running means: CRN was cooler in the early phase, and warmer in the later phase of the series.

    The greatest CONUS difference above CRN was +0.68 °C, below CRN -0.62 °C.
    The average difference was no more than +0.02 °C!

    Please don’t wonder when comparing this graph with those shown by Steven Mosher, like this one:
    https://tinyurl.com/yxwm2w5s

    because station sets, baseline and anomaly computation differ.

    For example, nothing similar to e.g. Pairwise Homogenisation algorithm was used here; all stations which did not provide for sufficient baseline data were automatically rejected.

    *
    I keep wondering about the similarity between the two time series, despite the station set difference!

    That reminds me words written by Steven Mosher years ago below a WUWT guest post, something like “The planet is oversampled”. He was really right!

    How else could we explain that about 100 stations give results so similar to those provided by over 6000? The primary condition of course is to have a well balanced spatial distribution over the country you want to observe.

    *
    To be honest, I don’t understand why Anthony gets raging about differences
    – between a minuscule set of CRN stations and a huge set of anonymous stations, no matter where they come from;
    – arbitrarily picked out of such a small time period like Oct 2018 – Jun 2019!

    Regards
    J.-P. D.

    Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

    • I was wondering if you plotted the absolute temperature trends for the USCRN stations. When doing that on the NOAA website, the cooling trend is pervasive from 2005-2019 whereas using the older data from 1979-2004, the warming trend is in line with the MSM.

  38. Apparently the summers are warming slower in an overall US warming trend (a moderating effect on summer highs and winter lows), probably mediated in some respect by moisture content. This suggests that perhaps land use changes started in the 1930s are more important to US outcomes than average temperatures (e.g. 1936 was not an unusual year by average), or that globally warmer air just carries more moisture (e.g. the conditions at the Last Glacial Maximum are known to have been extremely arid/dusty by today’s standards), or some combination of the two.

  39. Sadly, all of the comparisons made here of USCRN data, which begin only in 2005, with much-longer time series overlook an essential point: the major discrepancies between pristine and UHI-corrupted locations developed in the the course of the 20th century. All the major changes in urbanization, transportation and mechanization took place during that period. That the discrepancies in common-base anomalies prove to be minor so far the 21st century cannot be taken as valid indication of similar agreement throughout earlier history.

    • 1sky1

      “… overlook an essential point: the major discrepancies between pristine and UHI-corrupted locations developed in the the course of the 20th century.”

      First of all, your elegant comment is here out of topic: the discussion is here restricted to CRN vs. ‘crap’.

      But should you be able to do that: please communicate a list of 100 of your ‘pristine’ CONUS stations having been active during the last century!

      They should be present in the GHCN daily record, so the same job can be done again, exactly like this one with 46 USHCN stations considered ‘pristine’ around 2011/12 by ‘surfacestations.org’:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nfrk9qylSAyYA1yNilPXrC6E3Sul5rVA/view

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L5oQowWa2O7n2GRMvRRjQyMt5Oe8Iqpf/view

      As you easily can see, your UHI-based point does not fit very well to real observation.

      • [Y]our UHI-based point does not fit very well to real observation.

        You seem to have problems with logic. My essential point is that 21st century data comparisons cannot be projected backwards. And what others may consider “pristine” is not the basis I use for vetting century-long records. Having invested considerable effort in that vetting process, I’m not inclined to gratify the desire of an uncomprehending troll to eat the fruit of that work. Without further ado, here’s the discrepancy between UHI-corrupted and relatively uncorrupted CONUS records over the 20th century:

        http://s1188.photobucket.com/user/skygram/media/Publication1.jpg.html?o=0

        Note that how discrepancy flattens going into the 21st century.

  40. Just to the east of St. Paul MN. I’ve turned on the air conditioning for 4 hours this year.
    This week, morning temperatures are around 58 F. With good insulation a couple of fans cool the house at night and the house is okay through the day.

    This is a cool summer in MN. If any NASA map show MN hot though August 1, they are lying and you should never again believe NASA for anything. If they lie at this, even their aeronautical data is suspect and therefore worthless. In Latin: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  41. Where do you go with things when the number cruncher s don’t tell the truth ?
    NASA has no credibility in the weather fabrication industry .
    Stick to space or …don’t bother if you are willing to politicize climate .
    Trump still has a lot of cleaning out to do .

  42. My utility company reported all but one anywhere from 4-11 degrees cooler than for the same time last year.

Comments are closed.