Essay by Larry Hamlin
In the most recent L A Times article hyping “the hottest October on record” the Times can’t seem to get it right in understanding the critical differences between “average temperature anomaly” and “maximum absolute temperature” data.
The Times article references the global average temperature anomaly graphic noted below which shows the October 2023 global value.
NOAA has also released its October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperature anomaly outcome of 1.35 F (shown below – degrees F on the left hand scale) which climate alarmists have ignored and instead erroneously hyped the global wide October average temperature anomaly outcome as representing the maximum absolute temperature that applies to the Contiguous U.S. region.
The U.S. Contiguous average temperature anomaly value is defined using the USCRN temperature network of measurement stations that commenced operation in 2005 that are specifically determined to meet siting standards that preclude urban heat island impacts from distorting temperature measurements as occurs on the majority of USHCN temperature stations.
The NOAA October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperature anomaly value is only the 7th highest average anomaly value measured with prior year measurements for years 2016 (3.44 F), 2015 (2.72 F), 2021(2.29 F), 2014 (2.23 F), 2007 (1.85 F) and 2010 (1.46 F) all exceeding the October 2023 measured average temperature anomaly result.
The L A Times article shown below once again misunderstands and misuses (as discussed in a prior WUWT article found here) the critical difference (yet again) between average temperature anomaly data and absolute maximum temperature data by erroneously claiming that the October 2023 average temperature anomaly represents the “the hottest October on record” (note the Times articles photo caption) without understanding that such claims can only be determined by use of absolute maximum temperature data versus average temperature anomaly data.
Average temperature anomaly data represents a measure of the statistical difference between a specific month’s average temperature and the long-term average temperature of that same months’ prior measurements over a defined period of years.
Average temperature anomaly data does not represent maximum absolute temperature values with these latter measurements being required to support claims of “the hottest October on record” as hyped by climate alarmists.
The global wide average temperature anomaly data represent the combined average of hugely varying global regional average temperature anomaly values that cover the entire earth’s surface with about 70% of that surface being over the world’s oceans and about 30% being over the far-flung continents which are separated by tens of thousands of miles.
The land area of the contiguous U.S. region represents less than 1.9 % of the earth’s surface and lies between a specific and defined region of latitude (about 25.84 degrees N to 49.38 degrees N) and longitude (about 66.96 degrees W to 124.67 degrees W) in the northern hemisphere.
Attempting to utilize a global wide average temperature anomaly value to determine what absolute maximum temperature outcomes occurred in various defined regional global areas is absurd and invalid.
If the L A Times wants to address “the hottest October on record” it needs to use absolute maximum temperature data records instead of average temperature anomaly data.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. October maximum temperature data for the period 1895 to 2023 (shown below ) clearly establishes that October 2023 was only the 94th highest October maximum temperature out of 129 recorded maximum temperatures with the highest ever measured October valueoccurring in 1963.
Looking at NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data for all months between 1895 and 2023, as shown below, establishes that the October 2023 maximum temperature was only the 867th maximum temperature month out of 1546 recorded maximum temperature months.
If the L A Times wants to make claims of “the hottest month on record” then it must use absolute maximum temperature data to do so and stop erroneously using invalid global average temperature anomaly data to falsely support its flawed “the hottest month on record” claims.
I have said it before, being innumerate is a requirement for being a green. Or a newspaper writer.
I am sure this is just a misinterpretation of the numbers. /s
I think you might need the full /sarc tag
Here in Milwaukee I kinda sorta remember the fall of 1963 as having some record warm days.
Can you plot linear trend lines on those plots?
There is a small page on Wikipedia about Copernicus Climate Change Service.
This is the source of the information used by the LAT writer, Hayley Smith. She is dealing with subject manner she is ill-equipped to handle.
“Hayley Smith is an environment reporter for the Los Angeles Times, where she covers the many ways climate change is reshaping life in California, including drought, floods, wildfires and deadly heat. She previously worked on the breaking news team. Originally from Miami, she holds a master’s degree in journalism from USC.”
“Originally from Miami, she holds a master’s degree in journalism from USC.”
How can you guys doubt her article in the LA Times?
A master’s degree in journalism means she is an expert in EVERY topic!
Whenever my lefty friends bring up “the hottest month on record” news stories I ask them three questions:
And then I invite everyone to talk about something else…
2 only since satellite records began. Before that until today thermometer records are hot and (mainly) miss
2007 was the tipping point-
A Brief History Of Touchscreen Technology: From The IPhone To Multi-User Videowalls (forbes.com)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/
“LeGrande says, as snow deposits onto a growing glacier, the temperature of the air imprints onto the water molecules.”
I’ll never believe that. I know it’s about the chemistry of the layers- I still don’t believe it.
I don’t know what NOAA is talking about in its National Time Series but it certainly isn’t the highest US temperature of any year. Many people are, I’m sure, aware that summer temperatures above 115F are not unusual in various parts of the country, even excluding special places like Death Valley. I strongly suspect that Larry Hamlin is just using some convenient charts without any idea about what they are actually reporting.
Of course this particular article is just about Octobers. Temperatures not exceeding 90F may be reasonable for October. December temperatures exceeding 100F are not unusual in the LA basin.
“If the L A Times wants to make claims of “the hottest month on record””
But they don;t say the hottest month on record, do they? They say the hottest October on record.
Even an accurate statement can be misleading. Here’s an exact quote from the LA Times article: “Last month was the hottest October ever recorded, with an average global surface temperature of 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit— about 3.1 degrees warmer than the preindustrial average, according to Copernicus Climate Change Service, the European climate agency. It was 0.7 of a degree warmer than the previous warmest October in 2019.”
I would argue that this statement may be accurate but is highly misleading. For starters, the method of obtaining the 59.5 degree number was not used to obtain the “preindustrial average”. The author is comparing apples with oranges. It’s impossible to ever know what the equivalent measurement of the ‘preindustrial average’ would ever have been.
The statement: “the hottest October EVER recorded” is clearly misleading. “Ever” is a long time. The recording method used for the 59.5 number is barely a few decades old. It’s certainly not a century old, and hardly forever. There are numerous proxy estimates of temperatures going back centuries and millennia that indicate much hotter climate data. It’s misleading to fail to include this critical point in the ‘forever’ statement.
The L A Times, other media and politically driven Government climate agencies play the “hottest month game” claim month after month with the same claims made for August 2023. This articles sentence reflects the phony game where month after month is falsely portrayed as “the hottest month ever” which is unsupported by measured science data with such flawed claims therefore being nothing but climate alarmist political propaganda.
“with the same claims made for August 2023”
Yes, because August 2023 was a record. As was September, and July. This has been documented in WUWT with their monthly publication of the UAH data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/
The climate data for the 2023 months of July, August, September and the June through August summer period that were all falsely claimed as “hottest ever months or summer” reflects “average temperature anomaly” data and not “absolute maximum temperature” data outcomes making these months and summer “hottest ever claims” completely false and nothing but phony politically contrived climate alarmist propaganda.
I suspect most of the LA times readers do not understand any of this o and certainly do not know how to critically inspect it. Believe whatever they are told by the LA Times stupid or lying journalists, who know their readers are even more ignorant and innumerate than the journalists so just make it up, or misrepresent the data, if they even understand what it means, and its one months weather which has nothing to do with 30 year climate. It’s how they make a living. Lying to scare stupid lazy minded people who believe what they’re told or are too lazy to think. Easy.
The CRN data shows that October 2023 was not the warmest October even in the brief time the network has been available. While the U.S. is a small percent of the total surface area, it is a much larger percent of the land area. It is certainly large enough to make one wonder how the globe has such warming. UHI maybe?
“It is certainly large enough to make one wonder how the globe has such warming. UHI maybe?”
Here’s the UAH anomaly chart for October 2023.
You can compare this to October 2017, the previous warmest October.
Glad to see you realise that the warming is mainly around the tropics…
Even you should be able to figure out it is from the strong El Nino.
You can even see the El Nino warmth progressing around the tropics in this series of charts
Hence, there is no evidence of any human causation.
Not to mention that the NOAA satellite spatial resolution is far too coarse to resolve changes in urban temperate locations.
What on earth do you think has happened to urban locations in the last 4 months to produce such a marked change in global temperatures?
“Glad to see you realise that the warming is mainly around the tropics…”
Why do you keep making quotes up? I said nothing about where the warming was – just posted the UAH map for October.
In fact the data posted by Spencer shows it was warm everywhere.
Compared with 1991-2020 average
Tropics +1.0°C
Northern Hemisphere: +1.0°C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.8°C
Global: +0.9°C
All of these areas beat the previous October record by 0.3 – 0.5°C.
“Even you should be able to figure out it is from the strong El Nino.”
Personal insults don’t help your argument.
I’ve said it’s possible this is the result of the El Niño, but if it is it’s behaving very differently to previous ones.
These two graphs partially prove my point about ΔΤ changes. The areas of warming change all over the place. Part of what you are claiming as CO2 warming is nothing more than weather. Look at the southern oceans. What evidence is there that the ocean atmosphere is warming over the cooling ocean? What is the cause? CO2 maybe?
“These two graphs partially prove my point about ΔΤ changes.”
Difficult to argue with, as you never explain what your point is.
“The areas of warming change all over the place.”
Of course they do. It would be a pretty weird world if everywhere was always the same temperature every October.
“Part of what you are claiming as CO2 warming is nothing more than weather.”
When did I claim that. You asked where the warming was and I showed you. No mention of what cause this particular month to be this hot.
What you are claiming is that the GLOBE is warming. Yet just in the two views you showed, areas with massive “warming” move around. How can that be if the entire globe is warming. That is weather, not global warming. One spot warms, then cools while another warms and then cools.
I’ve said that averaging ΔT without a common baseline will generate this kind spurious information. There are too many locations like USCRN that show little warming. That is a warning sign of something not right. UHI is becoming an issue and will cause spurious trends.
Global anomalies determined from surface measurements have uncertainty values in the units digits. That means trusting anomalies is questionable.
“What you are claiming is that the GLOBE is warming.”
I and anyone who can look at graph. But that wasn’t the point of the graph – it was to answer your question about where the world was warmer in October 2023. It also demonstrates that this was not due to UHI. This is satellite data and the main argument for that is that it is not affected by UHI.
“Yet just in the two views you showed, areas with massive “warming” move around.”
And you find that surprising, becasue? Why would you expect temperature patterns in 2023 to be identical to 2017? The world and it’s weather are complicated. If everywhere on the planet always had the same anomaly, there would no need to try to establish global temperature data sets.
“How can that be if the entire globe is warming.”
Even if the entire planet is warming (it isn’t), why would you expect to be reflected in monthly averages? Everywhere can be warming on average, but at any moment in time there will be places that are colder.
“I’ve said that averaging ΔT without a common baseline will generate this kind spurious information.”
You keep saying it. You just nether justify the claim. Why do you think a global anomaly will cause “spurious information” is absolute temperatures don’t? Any monthly average anomaly is just the average temperature minus the average base value.
“There are too many locations like USCRN that show little warming.”
As has been pointed out numerous times – USCRN shows more warming than the global average.
That these averages of averaged temperature data are plotted and reported to hundredths of a Kelvin implies the data are significant to this level and they are able to resolve such tiny increments.
What a joke.
And in that same issue of the LA Times, to the right of the photo- a list of other stories- including one of droves of CA people moving to TX, where of course it’s much hotter!
Some average temperature calculation might produce a higher number for Texas than for California but “much hotter” is as much an exaggeration as the alarmists bray. Considering the winter blizzards of the northern Texas plains, it may well be more correct to say, based on both latitude and elevation, that Texas is much colder than California.
These are the same people who use “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” interchangeably. When you want non biased reporting, stay away from the LA Times.
This is really important.
I get confused with all the talk about temperature, average temperature, average global temperature, temperature anomalies, average temperature anomalies, sea surface temperatures, land temperatures, air temperatures, lower atmosphere temperatures, tropospheric temperatures and that isn’t even touching on proxy temperatures. About the time I get to thinking I’m understanding what I am reading I realize they are talking about a different measurement than I thought they were.
There has got to be a way to simplify all this confusion. It seems to me that the IPCC is primarily concerned with average global temperatures. I fail to see how average global temperatures are relevant. How could we possibly know what the average global temperature is and how could you possibly know that a 1.5C increase in average global temperature is good or bad and what good is an average temperature anyway. It doesn’t tell you a damn thing.
The whole thing is a mess and I think the confusing lingo is on purpose.
Indeed, and temperatures are transient. It’s not like they are saved like money in a bank. A temperature only has relevance for a particular location at a particular time.
Averaging temperatures has no physical meaning. A statistical construct to sustain an imaginary crisis, but totally meaningless in the real world.
I feel that a global temperature is meaningless and it would be better to talk of global energy because a temperature needs a being to sense it