NOAA Claims 2015 Hottest On Record - Wrong

Subtitle: US Pristine Areas Show No Warming Trend

This being mid-January, it is the time when summaries of last year are announced.  NOAA, via the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) announced this week that 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded when both land and ocean records are considered.  Well, that may be true, given the false and misleading data that is in their database, and all the adjustments to that data.   This post shows some of why the NCDC conclusion is not valid.   In short, the land temperature data for the US from pristine areas, the USCRN data, shows a cooling trend since 2004 and 2015 is far from the warmest in that data.   What NCDC includes, wrongly, is data from known warming locations such as cities and other sites where artificial warming occurs.   In addition, 2015 was the warming phase of an El Niño, so ocean temperatures are temporarily a bit warmer than usual.  

As written before on SLB, (see link  to "Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases,") the cities are warming, have warmed, and will continue to warm no matter what provides the electricity, heating energy, and transportation energy to them.  The simple facts of a great amount of heat being dissipated in a relatively small area creates a heat bubble.   More population in cities over time creates an even greater heat bubble.   It is a simple, but stark fact that even if all electricity on the planet were from hydroelectric dams, a source that creates zero carbon dioxide, CO2, and every vehicle was electric, plus all energy used in the cities was electricity, the warming bubble would still exist.  For False-Alarmists to conclude that CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduce to prevent catastrophic global warming is simply false.  Even if CO2 production ceased 200 years ago, the temperatures as measured by NCDC would still show a warming trend.  

From the NCDC website (see link),

"The January–December map of temperature anomalies shows that warmer-than-average temperatures occurred across the vast majority of the globe during 2015, combining to bring overall record warmth for 2015, at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average. This easily surpasses the previous record set just last year by 0.16°C (0.29°F). The global temperatures were strongly influenced by the strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year. The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both much lower than the 2015 temperature."

2015    0.90 deg C above average
2014    0.74
1998    0.63
1997    0.51

Here is the map that NCDC refers to in the first sentence.  This shows land and ocean by different colors, with cooler in blue and warmer in red.  

from NCDC website 23 January 2016

It is notable that NCDC did not mention, that I could locate, the cooling (blue areas) in the eastern Canada, southern Greenland, and north Atlantic areas.   It is a feature of good science to discuss the contrary data that is opposite to one's conclusions.   A valid reason should be put forth for why the contrary data exists.  Only a few hundred miles apart, eastern Canada is cooling, while the remainder of Canada was hotter than normal.  Also, the map above shows the western Atlantic Ocean hotter than normal, while the north Atlantic is much colder.   Yet, we know the Gulf Stream carries warm water north and a bit east across those same areas.    Similarly, the region around Japan is colder, yet surrounding areas are warmer.   No mention of these differences.  

While this will be covered in more detail in a future post at SLB, the USCRN data for 2015 from pristine sites shows no warming trend for the contiguous states for the relatively short period (11 years) of the USCRN data. 

Conclusion

The fact is, and has been for a long time, that the official keepers of the temperature records reach their conclusions of alarming, rising temperature trends by over-inclusion of data that has no business being included in such temperature databases.   To put it in the simple vernacular, "Cities gonna warm."   Also, fact-finding and analysis of temperature-measurement sites in the US show that most of the sites also have artificial heating and are not measuring what they are intended to measure.   The was recognized a bit more than a decade ago and resulted in the creation of measuring instruments in pristine areas, the USCRN sites that are far from human influences such as cities, power plants, and asphalt parking lots.   NCDC and NOAA's problem is that the USCRN data is only a decade long, perhaps a bit longer for the oldest sites.  The USCRN data is not global, being limited only to the USA.   SLB has a post on the first decade results from USCRN, see link.   The results for that decade, 2005-2014 (inclusive) show a pronounced cooling in the contiguous US, with a severe cooling trend for winters.   A short record, of only ten years, is subject to pronounced end-point effects.  We can expect that additional years may change the trend a bit until a longer period exists.   An update to that USCRN post is imminent, likely in early March 2016 when the data for the full winter 2016 is available. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved.   

More Bad Climate Data from NCDC

This could be a big issue, perhaps not.  I wrote on SLB in September, 2011 about NCDC temperatures not matching between the US and the individual states - see link.   The latest data error is somewhat different. 

The assertion of error is that the USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network) database as kept by NCDC (National Climate Data Center) does not take actual, measured temperature data even when such data is available for some, perhaps many, stations.  In essence, the final data set uses "estimated" data.  

Several bloggers at internet sites have made the boffins at NCDC aware of this, as has the Texas State Climatologist.   Drudge carried a report, see link.   Drudge criticizes the EPA and US Supreme Court for making regulations based on the bad data.  

So, is it any wonder that the climate models are totally wrong?  We know the models use data that is corrupted by almost constant adjustment; this has been admitted and even published in peer-reviewed literature.  Now, it appears that a good fraction of the temperature sites are just making up the data.   Why would the temperature dataset use estimated data, when actual data is ready and waiting to be plugged into the database?  

If the problem is corrected, and non-trivial changes result in the many different reports that have issued from various climate centers that use the NCDC data, it will be interesting to see how many of those reports are updated.   I suspect that NCDC will make the corrections, then report out that the differences were de minimis, so trivial that no changes to any reports are required.  

We also know that the climate models themselves are woefully inadequate, as even the IPCC itself has admitted, in writing.    The key sentence from IPCC: 

"This difference between simulated and observed [recent global temperature] trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error."

IPCC's catch-22 is if they attribute the pause to natural variability, they then must concede that any warming from 1970-1998 could also be due to natural variability.

If they admit it is due to b) or c) above, then faulty modeling is obvious. 

Quite an admission by IPCC. They really have themselves in a box.

Now, they also have to wonder about the very input data to the models - is it any good at all?  Or, were (or are) many insiders aware of this all along, and it was kept secret in order to perpetuate the myth that man-made Carbon Dioxide causes global warming?

In light of the President (Obama) telling college graduates that the global warming problem is real, and the 18 warmest years on record have happened in the past 22 years, one must wonder if he will ever be advised that the issue is not "put to rest" as he stated.   see link.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California 

US Long-Term Temperature Trend from NCDC

There is a problem in the NCDC data (National Climatic Data Center, US Department of Commerce, NOAA Satellite and Information Service) for the United States.    The problem is that the reported average temperature trend for the US does not agree with the mean, nor the area-weighted average, of the 48 contiguous states.   NCDC reports the temperature trend for the 48 contiguous states is 1.2 degrees F per century.  However, the mean of the individual states is 0.78 degrees F per century, and the area-weighted average for the 48 states is 0.74 degrees F per century.

This is a problem.  If the NCDC cannot get it right, how much of their data is wrong, and how many other statements issuing from there are also wrong?

Below (Figure 1) is a simple table, listing each of the contiguous 48 states in the US, alphabetically, with the temperature trend next to each state, in degrees F per century.

Figure 1

US 48 Contiguous States and Long-term Temperature Trend, Deg F/Century

Data from US NCDC

The area-weighted average was computed by weighting each temperature trend by the relative geographical area of each state.  This does not change the average much, but gives a better number because small states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, etc.) do not have an undue influence over  large states (Texas, Montana, California, etc.)  

Other things pop out upon closer inspection of this table.  

There is a problem of uneven heating in adjacent states.  As an example, Texas shows a trend of zero degrees F per century, yet its neighboring state to the north, Oklahoma, is warming at 0.7 degrees F per century.  This is not likely, nor is it due to CO2 or any other so-called "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere.  As I have stated before, how does CO2 know to ignore the entire state of Texas, yet concentrate its radiant heat beams on Oklahoma?   Note that, in earlier posts on SLB, I pointed out that adjacent cities have grossly different warming trends, again showing that CO2 cannot do what climate scientists claim it does.  

This gets even worse when one examines Texas' westerly neighbor, New Mexico.  New Mexico is warming at the rate of 0.9 degrees F per century.  How does CO2 know to focus its beams on New Mexico, yet ignore Texas?

Another example is the pair of states, Oklahoma and Arkansas.  Oklahoma, as stated just above, is warming at just under the national average at 0.7 degrees F per century.  Meanwhile, its neighbor to the east, Arkansas, is cooling at minus 0.3 degrees F per century.   Again, one must question how is this possible, if CO2 is responsible for the warming?  How can Arkansas be cooling?   I've been to Arkansas and can attest to the great lush green growth in that state, as CO2 abounds.  

Yet another example is the adjacent states of North Dakota and South Dakota.  North Dakota is warming at the alarming rate of 2.5 degrees F per century.  Its neighbor to the south, South Dakota, however is warming at half that rate, 1.2 degrees F per century.    How does CO2 know to focus so much energy from its heat rays on North Dakota? 

Yet another example is the adjacent states of Pennsylvania, and New York.  Both are of comparable size and located in the Northeast.  Pennsylvania is warming very slightly at 0.1 degrees F per century.  However, New York to its immediate north is warming at a much higher rate of 1.2 degrees F per century.  Again, how does CO2 know to ignore Pennsylvania and concentrate its heat rays on New York?

Then, there is the entire band of states along the edge of the Gulf of Mexico: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.  Their reported temperature trends are zero for Louisiana, but negative for the others: Mississippi (negative 0.7 degrees F per century), Alabama (negative 0.8 degrees F per century), and Georgia (negative 0.6 degrees F per century).   Contrast those to Florida, immediately south of Georgia, which has a warming of 0.3 degrees F per century.  How could CO2 ignore the southern states but heat up other states? 

There are other curious adjacent states with wide disparities:

California: 0.7 degrees F per century, and Nevada to the east at 2.3 degrees F per century.  

Michigan: 0.1 degrees F per century, and Ohio to the south at 0.7 degrees F per century.  

Finally, the overall trend of 1.1 degrees F per century for the US contiguous 48 states is repeated on the US EPA's website, with the following text:   (note that the EPA website uses 1.1 degrees, while NCDC reports the trend is 1.2 degrees.  Perhaps that is acceptable for government work, and is lost in the rounding error.)  

" 

United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.

Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979."   (bold emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the coastal regions of the west coast (Washington, Oregon, and California) all show a very sudden and steep temperature decline since 2002.    The average for the coastal areas is negative 21 degrees F per century.    One can only wonder why CO2 has abandoned the warming task set for it by climate scientists.   Perhaps the coastal cooling has more to do with the rapidly cooling Pacific Ocean along the west coast of the US.  

In summary, one can only wonder at what other examples of gross exaggeration are to be found upon close inspection of the data, and the conclusions arrived therefrom by the alarmist climate science community.  Also, the individual states show gross disparities in warming rates, from a high of 2.5 for North Dakota to a low of negative 0.8 for Alabama.  Adjacent states show gross disparities that indicate that CO2 cannot be causing any warming at all.  CO2 cannot act capriciously, but must act uniformly if it is indeed a physical phenomenon and not a figment of imagination. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California.  Where it is indeed growing colder year by year.