News Brief by Kip Hansen
The press is again awash with the latest hysterical news that July 2019 was the hottest July ever!
NOAA Data Confirms July Was Hottest Month Ever Recorded
by Henry Fountain appeared in the NY Times’ barely credible feature Climate Fwd:. The piece was prompted by a NOAA Press release:
July 2019 was hottest month on record for the planet
NOAA has spent billions of tax payers dollars to send up satellites to monitor the weather and thus climate of the Earth. It pays two different scientific groups, UAH and RSS to produce global temperature data sets of the Earth’s atmosphere, but routinely ignores them when is needs to push Climate Catastrophism.
Those who choose to read a full, scientific explanation as to why July 2019 was NOT the hottest ever should refer back to Dr. Roy Spencer’s piece on this site published on 2 August, July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record.
For those who are visual learners, I offer graphs of the two satellite based global temperature records that NOAA ignores when making “hottest ever” declarations, first the graphs from Remote Sensing Systems:
It is interesting to note how different the visual impression is between the most recent data and the longer term data. In the top image of “recent” data, the trend line from the full data set is included — it is not the trend of the recent data. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the data is functionally flat (or even downtrending if one wishes to start at the 2016 peak).
And as a reminder for those who may have forgotten the changes RSS made to it calculations in 2016, from Climate4you:
And from The National Space Science & Technology Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, the data set usually referred to as UAH, two visualizations, same data:
Just so we know what we are talking about, the Lower Troposphere is the part of the atmosphere in which most of us live. This little image, from UCAR, helps a bit. Earth’s tallest mountains are at almost 30,000 feet, just under the 10 km top of the troposphere. The tops of Tropical Thunderstorms can reach as high as 12.5 km. Down in the lower troposphere, we have everyday weather events, ground level temperatures, the winds that stir the trees and other weather and climate phenomena experienced by most humans. Those of your who climb or hike the high peaks of the Sierras in California, as I have, have gone up out the top of the Lower Troposphere, the same with the highest peaks of the Rocky Mountains.
UPDATE: Aug 18, 2019 4:30 PM Eastern Time
There have been several complaints in comments about the use of the Climate4you graph for RSS — which shows the difference the 2016 change made to the RSS data set, and that I did not show changes to the UAH data set. Here is the graph for UAH with changed shown (red older set, blue current set, as with RSS above):
To complete the batch, here is RSS as above (old and new) with UAH offset above RSS, to allow comparison of the SHAPES of the sets — which are nearly identical — the only big difference is the RSS change in 2016, which kicks that set upward:
Before anyone asks, YES, overlaying UAH on top of the older (red) RSS shows them very nearly identical in all aspects up the end of the red trace.
Readers are free to make of this as they will. Spencer says: “But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.”
UPDATE #2: Aug 18, 2019 6:30 PM Eastern Time
I should add that although RSS and UAH have nearly identical shapes, the numerical values for the various time points are quite different, with RSS being about 0.3°C higher — in additional, since the 2016 change, RSS has a steeper warming trend despite having the same essential shape as UAH.
# # # # #
Authors Comment Policy:
Nothing much new here, but needed to be brought up again to counter the constant biased reporting from the media and entrenched climate forces within NOAA.
Note that the Consensus Climate Team insists on mostly ignoring satellite temperature sets, which were initially sought to help settle bias issues with the thermometer record, using instead known-to-be-upward-biased ground-based thermometer records on the spurious argument that “that’s where we live” — as if we all lived at 2 meters above ground level and not in the Lower Troposphere. In contradiction, the Consensus Climate Team insists that satellite sea level rise data be used in place of the much more accurate tide gauge/CORS combinations – preferring the higher values of Sea Level Rise in the satellite data set.
Address your comments to “Kip…” if you are speaking to me.
# # # # #
Alaska records hottest month in July?
“Alaska’s average temperature in July was 58.1 degrees (14.5 Celsius). That’s 5.4 degrees (3 Celsius) above average and 0.8 degrees (0.4 Celsius) higher than the previous warmest month of July 2004, NOAA said.”
“But Alaska’s recent heat has had silver linings. Barley and other crops are ready to harvest, said Stephen Brown of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperative Extension Service.
The growing season has been extended by a month, and if extra days become the norm, they will expand what can be grown in the state. Brown used heat radiated from his blacktop driveway to grow fruit not usually seen outside greenhouses.
“I’ve got a bumper crop of tomatoes and jalapenos this summer,” he said.”
https://apnews.com/d7b565a7e2f14f3381065f7a677231af
Any comments?
Was this thermometer part of the GHCN network?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/12/greenlands-record-temperature-denied-the-data-was-wrong/
Was it used directly or indirectly to make “adjustments”?
Has it been corrected in the actual records and not just verbally?
Why the record temperatures for July 2019 are wrong?
If you compare the station coverage from gistemp with the cooler areas from the uah satellite July 2019 these areas have little or no surface coverage.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/
Give the missing areas above average temperatures then just like magic we have record temperatures. They have been doing this dishonestly for many years.
This gives them freedom to make up these areas whatever they want to keep giving record temperatures when they feel like it. There is dishonest science in the surface data giving only confirmation bias.
Global temperatures always have cool and warm anomalies and if you deliberately remove most of these either way, records will be broken because it’s not how the planet’s weather patterns/climate ever behaves.
“If you compare the station coverage from gistemp with the cooler areas from the uah satellite July 2019 these areas have little or no surface coverage.”
And if you look at the GISTEMP anomaly mad, you will see that most of the areas that are cool in the UAH data are also cool in the GISS data.
“And if you look at the GISTEMP anomaly mad, you will see that most of the areas that are cool in the UAH data are also cool in the GISS data.”
Only one area is cool on land (NE Europe) that match the satellite with a few about average/above temperatures, but I do know that the anomalies are based on different periods. The warm bias is clear because there is not more than a 1c difference in temperature between the different time base lines. There is a comparison with UK station temperatures and gisttemp at the bottom below.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html
Western Europe and most of Africa are around 1-4c above normal not shown anywhere else. Africa have hardly any surface stations that have been filled in from elsewhere. The anomalies in Africa are nothing like each other because the data is made up for most of it and takes up a large section of land mass.
The UK land stations was 1.2c above average for July 2019 whereas for gistemp most of UK is between 2c to 4c above normal.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/summaries/index
“I do know that the anomalies are based on different periods.”
That’s why I gave you a map based on the same period as UAH, 1981 – 2010.
“The UK land stations was 1.2c above average for July 2019 whereas for gistemp most of UK is between 2c to 4c above normal.”
Nope. The GISS map shows the UK being in the 1 – 2°C range, UAH shows it being in the 0.5 – 1.5°C range. The actual value of 1.2°C is within both ranges.
“Western Europe and most of Africa are around 1-4c above normal not shown anywhere else. Africa have hardly any surface stations that have been filled in from elsewhere.”
Nope, compared with 1981 – 2010 GISS shows Western Europe and Africa less than 2°C above average, with the exception of Spain. UAH shows a lot of the area up to 1.5°C above average, with Southern Africa warmer. There are differences over Spain and the Mediterranean, with UAH showing areas between -0.5 and +0.5°C, but these are areas where there is station data.
Of course there are differences between the two, GISTEMP, and all other data sets, have been warming faster than UAH. GISTEMP is 0.52°C above the 1981 – 2010 average, UAH 0.38°C. But I don’t see evidence for your claim that the difference is due to there being no stations where the cooler parts of the globe.
“Nope. The GISS map shows the UK being in the 1 – 2°C range, UAH shows it being in the 0.5 – 1.5°C range. The actual value of 1.2°C is within both ranges.”
“Nope, compared with 1981 – 2010 GISS shows Western Europe and Africa less than 2°C above average, with the exception of Spain. UAH shows a lot of the area up to 1.5°C above average, with Southern Africa warmer. There are differences over Spain and the Mediterranean, with UAH showing areas between -0.5 and +0.5°C, but these are areas where there is station data.”
Both these values in the blockquote were from the 1951-1980 timeframe because I was showing how warming bias there has been introduced from then compared with now. No way was Western Europe and Africa for example that much cooler back then. That’s why I stated this before “The warm bias is clear because there is not more than a 1c difference in temperature between the different time base lines.”
The gistemp now barely shows any cooling for NH between 1940’s and 1970’s. The 1970’s were significantly cooler than the 1930’s and 1940’s despite what gistemp had been frequently adjusted too over the years.
Regarding the UK comparing the same baseline that you have correctly stated it still has roughly an 0.5c warmer anomaly because of the bands.
There is a big disagreement with Spain between the two of a significant amount.
With Africa uah shows between -0.5c and 1.5c for most of Africa, gistemp between 0.5c and 2.0c, so again there is roughly a warm bias this time of nearer 0.5c to 1.0c.
This type of regular pattern it what makes monthly record global temperatures, in places with little or no data.
“But I don’t see evidence for your claim that the difference is due to there being no stations where the cooler parts of the globe.”
The claim is actually when the cooler regions occur in places with no stations, when the warmer regions occur with stations. This is when there is very likely a claim for global record month.
I have demonstrated about 0.5c to 1.0c difference for these areas in Africa and it is pretty big chunk of land. Most of the anomalies have a warmer 0.5c band for gistemp compared with uah.
Can anyone please explain the outrageous growth of greenery this summer? Yes, it’s been cooler in the UK ( except for a bit of July) and wetter than last summer, but after the couple of hard frosts in the spring the greenery; trees, bracken (giant ferns, about six feet high) briars, and trees have all gone crazy. I’ve been hiking the same woods for 20 years and never seen anything like it. Sunspots, solar flares or what?( If anyone mentions CO2 I will set my dog on you. )
Dallas TX – NOAA shows July 2019 to be the 72nd hottest July since 1880
Norman Oklahoma shows July 2019 to be the 61st hottest July on record since 1895
Norman okla is missing 1975-1998 records on the noaa website – what is that all about.
Even with the missing years. 2016 is ranked as the 28th hottest year since 1895 (ignoring the 23 years of missing data on the website)
I don’t know about Norman, Oklahoma, but a Tulsa meterologist said about a week ago that he didn’t think Tulsa was going to hit 100F this month. It’s been a close call but I’m not sure Tulsa has hit 100F yet. And that is highly unusual. This area usually has numerous days over 100F during the summer.
This summer in the heart of the Dust Bowl we have had a very mild summer with unusual amounts of rain (which has held down the 100F+ high temperatures, although not the Heat Index).
We’ll take a summer like this every year, minus the overabundance of moisture. About half of what we got this year in rain would be sufficient. 🙂
“There have been several complaints in comments about the use of the Climate4you graph for RSS — which shows the difference the 2016 change made to the RSS data set, and that I did not show changes to the UAH data set. Here is the graph for UAH with changed shown (red older set, blue current set, as with RSS above):”
Kip, I’m pretty sure that red line is still showing version 6 of UAH. It’s from May 2015, the month after the new version was released.
Here’s a better comparison.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/V6-vs-v5.6-LT-1979-Mar2015.gif
“red line is still showing version 6 of UAH”
Indeed so. The change analogous to the change in RSS, and of about the same magnitude but the other way, happened in April 2015. The graph displayed here, which pretends to correspond, in fact just compares two different releases of V6.0.
Spencer’s graph does show it correctly, but in a way that makes the scale look small. Here is a plot which shows the differences made between versions for both UAH and RSS. They are virtually equal and opposite.
Bellman ==> Thank you — that is a better comparison.
In all honesty, I have come to the conclusion that ALL global temperature data sets are OPINIONS and can not be classified as facts. Some data sets that more closely agree simply demonstrate that the groups producing them agree as to their opinions of how, more or less, the raw data should be interpreted.
Thus we see RSS and UAH, for example, agreeing as to the SHAPE of the data (the hills and valleys) but disagreeing as to the magnitude, the numerical value in degrees.
You agree that the graph isn’t comparing uah 5.6 and 6.0, but this hasn’t been changed in the article. The implication of the update is that there has been almost no change in UAH, which is misleading to say the least.
“…All global temperature sets are OPINIONS…”
I really don’t agree. All sets are estimates and gave to make assumptions, but that does’t mean they are just the opinions of their maintainers. If they were it would be trivial for someone who believed there was no warming to take the raw data and show no warming.
Bellman ==> we’ll have to leave it at that then — they may well be informed opinions — the details of each, the numerical values, — are al a direct function of the scientific opinions of the teams that create the data sets — they all are quite certain that their methods and opinions are sound (or at least justified by circumstances.)
READERS ==> I have added two updates to the end of the essay over the last couple of hours. — kh
Well from our perspective in the Southern part of Australia we are looking forward to seeing the sun again, hopefully sometime soon. It seems as though our winters are getting colder here with lower minimum temperatures.
But the media will proudly announce in December that it has been the hottest year on record. I always wonder where are they measuring the temperature ? Even some of our summers have been very incipid.
We can easily survive a couple of extra degrees up, but I don’t think we’d do too well if the surface was covered in ice and snow for 365 days a year.
Kip,
— as if we all lived at 2 meters above ground level and not in the Lower Troposphere.
Fits like a hand in the glove with
— as if we all lived at 2 meters above sea level and not any height, anywhere in the Lower Troposphere.
Johann ==> The question of “where we live”has intrigued me for some time — Spencer and Christy peg the Lower Troposphere at “surface to about 8 km” or about up to 26,000 feet. I’ve stood on solid Earth as high as 14,505 feet (4,421 m) at the peak of Mount Whitney in the Sierra Nevada.
While I am no Weather Man, I understand that the majority of our weather (and thus the climates we experience) happens in the Lower Troposphere.
Land surface warming is mostly the result human land use changes and the processing methods used to calculate larger geographical “averages” (such as CONUS and Global). Sea surface temps from satellites are really more correctly sea surface SKIN temperature, which is a function of the sun shining on the water. Anyone swimming still ocean water knows that the skin temperature is not the same as the the surface water (two meters) temperature.
Kip Hansen
Thanks for the updates, fair enough.
I come back here to you last reply somewhere upthread:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/july-2019-hottest-july-ever/#comment-2774667
1. “GISS and UAH are entirely different beasts — GISS is a thermometer based surface data set — UAH is a satellite data set”.
No they aren’t.
The surface, where we live, and the middle of the lower troposphere indeed are ‘entirely different beasts’ with an average temperature difference of about 24 °C, and harsh weather differences: Roy Spencer doesn’t measure anything directly at surfaces (due to inherent biases especially above the ocean), all is done somewhere around 4-5 km.
But the graph below might very well convince you that satellite-based evaluations of O2’s microwave emissions and thermometric measurements at surface are all but ‘entirely different beasts’ – when viewed together as departures from the same mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MC1Ebx6HAxdHTNE7w1eL73BTer-rhkLa/view
2. “Our opinions obviously vary — but I am uncertain what point you are trying to make.”
Well that is really a surprise. You are in my opinion a honest person, and I therefore can’t understand where such uncertainty could arise from.
Is it not evident that I try to contradict the usual opinion that RSS, GISS and others perform data tampering, karlization etc etc etc, and that UAH is the one and only good guy?
3. “I am, and have been, aware of what Nick Stokes thinks on the issue — our opinions vary as well”.
My reference to the moyhu page on UAH adjustments compared with GISS’ adjustments
was not at all intended to show what Nick Stokes “thinks on the issue’. Not Nick’s opinion, let alone my own one do matter here: only data does.
And that data, everybody can manage to find, download and process it, using any spreadsheet calculator.
Here is another comparison of the UAH adjustments for 1979-2011 with those obtained by comparing GISS’ actual data witht that saved in 2012 into the Wayback Machine:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6axDruUd62XggCQtxje25aI8I4bOFGX/view
You clearly can see that the anomaly differences for GISS are by no means higher than those computed for UAH6.0 minus UAH5.6 in the LT.
That was Nick’s point, not more not less, and is mine as well.
Let me close this comment by coming back to the comparison of UAH LT adjustments at the transition from version 5.6 to 6.0, with those made by RSS from 3.3 to 4.0:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xVNr2ry4ozSCYh49MpfLoH7Twx7C2HLP/view
What we see here, this sudden divergence starting somewhere after 2000, has in my humble opinion nothing to do with any kind of data tampering to make the Globe warmer.
It is a hint on a huge technical problem whose search for an adequate solution bypasses the lay(wo)man’s average understanding and experience by dimensions.
Best regards
J.-P. D.
*
Sources
UAH5.6 LT
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
UAH6.0 LT
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
RSS3.3 LT
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
RSS4.0 LT
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
GISS actual:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
GISS saved in 2012 (many documents are present):
https://web.archive.org/web/20120927103121/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Bindidon ==> ah ==”Is it not evident that I try to contradict the usual opinion that RSS, GISS and others perform data tampering, karlization etc etc etc, and that UAH is the one and only good guy?”
You are arguing against I point that I did not make and do not hold.
My entire point — the point of the essay — which I have repeated many times, in the essay itself and in comments, is that July 2019 was not the hottest month ever– and I showed graphs of both RSS and UAH to illustrate.
Kip Hansen
1. Please follow back all my comments and your successive replies.
*
2. Here is the top ten of a descending sort of all July anomalies in the temperature series RSS4.0 LT:
1. 2019 7 0.71
2. 2010 7 0.70
3. 2016 7 0.68
…
2018 7 0.64
1998 7 0.63
2017 7 0.62
2014 7 0.54
2005 7 0.49
2015 7 0.49
2011 7 0.48
(Caution: RSS anomalies are wrt the mean of 1979-1998, making them some 0.14 C higher compared to 1981-2010. But that doesn’t change the sort.)
It is nice to show graphs ‘illustrating’ your point!
But numbers are better.
If I were you, I would by now ignore RSS4.0 because it does not 100% support your view. It’s much too hot, looks like GISS or NOAA in the LT! Keeping on UAH6.0 would be by far better. It’s so pretty cool there…
Here is the top ten of a descending sort of all July anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010) in the temperature series UAH6.0 LT:
1. 1998 7 0.51
2. 2019 7 0.38
3. 2016 7 0.38
…
2010 7 0.34
2018 7 0.32
2017 7 0.29
2002 7 0.23
2009 7 0.22
2005 7 0.22
2014 7 0.21
*
Sorry, Kip: we live in the lowest part of the lower troposphere, far far below where RSS and UAH pick up their data.
I guess that at least 99% of Mankind live below 1000 m altitude, that’s about 3-4000 m below the satellites’ LT measurement level.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Kip Hansen
I forgot to mention in my comments that NOAA very well has a satellite-based temperature series…
It is called STAR, and covers what is termed the ‘mid troposphere’, located somewhat above the lower troposphere. Comparing it with UAH6.0 for the same tropospheric level is absolutely amazing:
STAR MT:
ftp://ftp.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v4.1/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/NESDIS-STAR_TCDR_TMT_Merged_MSU2_AMSUA5_Monthly_S197811-E201907_V4.1_Regional_Means_Anomaly.txt
UAH6.0 MT:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Simply because STAR MT is much nearer to UAH LT than to UAH MT 🙂
Thus one gets peu à peu the impression that UAH is something like the small Gallic village facing the Roman invader.
I’m all but a fan of ‘hottest evah’ but… data is data is data.
Let us await HadCRUT’s global stuff in
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
for July 2019: it is still not there today, on 2019 Aug 22.
Meanwhile, we see that NOAA’s evaluation of the mid troposphere. STAR MT (see link in a comment above), also shows July 2019 on top:
2019 7 0.3130
2010 7 0.3040
2016 7 0.2520
1998 7 0.2440
2018 7 0.2300
2017 7 0.1670
2014 7 0.1450
2009 7 0.1300
2005 7 0.1300
2015 7 0.1280
I guess that the one and only official surface data looking like UAH is Ryan Maue’s WeatherBELL.
Unfortunately, it is behind paywall since quite a while.
But… it is reanalysis data, based on… a model.
But… I had to learn that while models showing warming are bad models, those showing cooling are good ones.
Hmmmh.