Chico, California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts announced on Sunday (see here) that he has discovered serious inconsistencies in the temperature data released to the public by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This finding is important since it reveals that the widely-reported assertion that July 2012 was the hottest month in the instrumental record for the contiguous U.S. (i.e., the continental U.S., not including Alaska) is wrong.
Watts, the founder, writer and owner of Watts Up With That? (WUWT), “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, made his discovery when comparing average temperatures for the U.S., announced each month in the NCDC’s “State of the Climate” (SOTC) report, with the actual database of NCDC temperatures. He found that there were huge differences between the two sources, as much as 0.7 degrees in July 2012, for example.
Here is why this is happening.
Temperature observers at weather stations send their data to the NCDC as soon as each month ends. Some stations, such as those at airports, send the data quickly via radio links and the Internet. Other stations use old paper forms which arrive by mail considerably later.
NCDC does not wait for all the data to be received before computing, and very publicly announcing, the U.S. average temperature (a statistic that has questionable meaning in the real world), its rank compared to other months and years, and its severity.
Here is what they announced in the July 2012 SOTC report, for example:
In cases like this where the data shows unusually high temperatures, mass media then broadly disseminate the data (e.g., “July Was Hottest Month on Record“, Wall Street Journal), loudly proclaiming it as further evidence of dangerous man-made global warming (e.g., “July in U.S. was hottest ever on record“, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).
“Hottest month in history” announcement based on incomplete data. Later analysis showed it was wrong.
When the data from lower technology sources finally arrives, NCDC update their temperature database typically “cooling” the country when all the data is used.
For July 2012, the real temperature average became 76.93 F, almost 0.7 F lower than that announced in the SOTC.
July 2012 then became about 0.47°F cooler than 77.4°F claimed as the previous monthly record in 1936.
But neither NCDC, nor their parent body NOAA, bother to tell the public and the press if, when the complete data set is analyzed, the announcements in the SOTC about records set, etc. are no longer true.
So the public, media and politicians are left with the impression that records were set when, for example in the case of this past July, they were not.
Watts found other inconsistencies with the data that he describes in detail on the WUWT Website here. He concludes:
“It is mind-boggling that this national average temperature and ranking is presented to the public and to the press as factual information and claims each month in the SOTC, when in fact the numbers change later.”
How will NOAA respond to this disturbing finding? I will updates readers in future FCPP blog posts.
Update – see here for part 2.
______________________
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition and an advisor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
I look forward to updates. Beyond learning how NOAA will respond to this disturbing finding – dare Canadians hope their federal government and Environment Canada will respond by finally waking up and stopping the de-railing our economy based on flawed “official science” that’s based on the old “lies, damn lies and statistics” snake-oil sales pitch, climate change alarmism and abuse of the so-called “precautionary principle” for gaining mass public acceptance?
Yes, one of the big problems for Canadians is that our government has pledged to follow the Americans on climate change. Our UN targets are exactly the same. Our methodology is exactly the same, namely using regulations against CO2 instead of going through our elected representations to pass “carbon” tax or cap and trade legislation.
So, Canada’s climate policy is largely decided in Washington DC, even though we have no say whatsoever what DC does.
NOAA’s records are here:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt
USA48 records start with the prefix “110″.
July 1936 is 76.43 F, a half a degree cooler than July 2012′s 76.93.
July 2012 is the warmest in their records.
Correct, that is indeed what they now have listed. But why is it that, in the July 2012 SOTC report, NOAA said that the temperature in July 1936 was 77.4 F? I can understand why the temperature of July 2012 would change once they have all the data, but why is the 1936 temperature different in the two data sources? Afterall, the SOCT is, for data that old, supposed to reflect what is in the database, not something different.
Just saw conflicting data dated Jan 8, 2013 on weather.com
They are still saying July 2012 was a record, and 2012 a record for the US.
What’s the scoop?
http://www.weather.com/news/warmest-year-record-heat-us-20130108
I sent the following letter to the NOAA press contact and one of their scientists in the area – they ahve yet to respond but I will let people know what they say:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: important question for a newspaper article we are writing
From:
Date: Tue, January 08, 2013 1:09 am
To: katy.vincent@noaa.gov
Cc: Jesse.Enloe@noaa.gov
Dear Ms. Vincent,
Could you tell me why, in the SOTC report for July 2012, the average temperature for July 1936 is cited as being 77.4 F, while in the NCDC database, it is listed as 76.43 F?
I understand that the change in the July 2012 average temperature between that stated in the July 2012 SOTC report (77.6 F) and that now in the database (76.93) was due to the impact of late arriving temperature data that changed the average, but I do not understand why the July 1936 temperature was changed.
Also, could you tell me if there was any announcement from NCDC or NOAA when the new July 2012 temperature turned out to be almost 0.7 degrees less that that announced in the SOTC report issued in early August 2012, please? If not, why was no announcement made? It certainly seems important given the huge coverage given to the July Tave as listed in the July 2012 SOTC report by many media across the world.
We plan to write a newspaper OpEd for submission across the U.S. on this topic shortly and so hope you can answer the questions in the next day if possible, please.
Thank you for your time,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
613-728-9200
No answer to the above, not even an acknowledgement.
I have found a direct correlation between the grant money passed out by government and the desire of government to tax the air we breath and the supposed “man made” global warming findings. It is absolute arrogance on the part of scientists and politicians to presume they have any control over the climate whatsoever. I love the fact that most of the “global warming” (or global climate change as it is know now since there has been no significant warming since 1996) conferences have been met with freak snow storms. I think it is God mocking them.
Perhaps God mocks our false pride; perhaps the challenge of solving the problem of Mother Nature (and Lady Luck) being so fickle and downright inhospitable will boost human ingenuity and get us ready for the next challenge. All’s in the best of fun.
Driving across the desolate plain of the Midwest I so wanted to get started on NAWAPAXXI. Holland met their challenge of the dikes completing after 50 years security measures for their land. Grand Coulee Dam and the TVA , the ThreeGorges Dam are projects to kick start a science driven economy. We know that prosperity follows science.
Pingback: Uncovering U.S. climate agency’s global warming propaganada – part 2 | Frontier Centre
Pingback: Uncovering U.S. climate agency’s global warming propaganda – Part 3 | Frontier Centre