An ‘inconvenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker
 

An ‘inconvenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/0...rence-network/

"I decided to do myself something that so far NOAA has refused to do: give a CONUS average temperature for the United States from the new ‘state of the art’ United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). After spending millions of dollars to put in this new network from 2002 to 2008, they are still giving us data from the old one when they report a U.S. national average temperature. As readers may recall, I have demonstrated that old COOP/USHCN network used to monitor U.S. climate is a mishmash of urban, semi-urban, rural, airport and non-airport stations, some of which are sited precariously in observers backyards, parking lots, near air conditioner vents, airport tarmac, and in urban heat islands. This is backed up by the 2011 GAO report spurred by my work............................."

Years ago we talked about those old weather reporting sites - and just where they were located. Watts has a .pdf link to to his report in the above paragraph.

So the government spends millions building new state of the art weather reporting stations - and then doesn't use the data because it doesn't fit the liberal template.

Not only that, sir, but they've also expanded their template options (and you may have heard this before) by including data from Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other gentlemen of that era--and before--who occasionally recorded weather observations. So they now have centuries of inexact data from which to pick & choose the numbers that suit them.

Michael Crichton's State of Fear opened my eyes to the extent of the duplicity in the Global Warming "industry," the trillions of dollars at stake, the pressure and intimidation brought to bear on any professional scientist who dares to rock the boat. And of course tax-free donations and government grant money increase proportionately to the amount of fear they can generate.

I don't need a template or an agenda to notice it is hotter and and dryer here in centeral Illinois. Nor do I need NOAA to tell me thousands of acres of corn are withering in the fields. I drive a lot.
And the farmers were prety happy a few months ago -- they got the crop in really early this year. This was supposed to be harvest time not plow under time.

Does any one have that report the Koch bros. commissioned to prove global warming doesn't exist? Their credentials are Unquestionable!:eek:

Nor here. The corn is fried just like last year. However my electrical usage is down 12% from this period last year.

You can't get a straight answer out of either side of the issue because there is Big money and Big profits involved.

Breaking my 'grey-man' lurker status because I actually may have something to contribute to the conversation for once.

Respectfully to QP Pete, Andrew Watts' blog is well-known among climate scientists, and usually can be counted on to 'interpret' data in whatever manner supports his hypothesis that climate change is a.) not influenced by human activity, or b.) not that serious. And using 114 disparate stations over the CONUS to compute a national temperature average, and finding that that average is less than an average computed using a *different* set of disparate stations, isn't all that interesting. He could have easily computed that the USCRN data had a *higher* average temperature, and it also wouldn't mean anything - when you compare stations against each other, you're folding in additional information about location, instrument type and calibration, etc. into the measurement, and that gives you a larger error bar, and differences between the USCRN average and the other average is certainly within that error bar.

What's more useful is an anomaly record for each station - comparing this July's temperature record against all July records measured by that station. Because you're only comparing the station against itself, you don't have to account for differences in sensors, etc. - it's a straight difference comparison, which you can then map out. That's how climate records are measured - not by lumping stations in Wisconsin with stations in Arizona, but by comparing the differences noted by the stations in Wisconsin and Arizona against their own history. You can then take those local anomalies, map them into different regions (national, by state, by county, etc.) and rank them in terms of their anomalies. NCDC has such maps online, and they can be found at:

NCDC Climate Maps - July 2012

There are a lot of questions to resolve about climate and climate change, but the notion that July wasn't the hottest on record for much of the country simply isn't borne out by the data, when making a fair comparison. Hope that's a useful analysis.

You know the whole thing stinks when the name had to be changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". The weather is dynamic. It pukes and farts at will. It always has, it always will and you have to be conceited to think that the human race has that much influence....

So, is the government using........
 

So bottom line up front in your contribution is the government using - and putting out - data from the new stations or the old stations?

The answer is 'yes': data from both the new and old stations are being used - the USCRN webpage has a pretty good description of how they're being used online at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/programoverview.html

Their data is also publicly available on that website as well.

To answer your 'old vs new' question, the USCRN was built to be the 'gold standard' for climate observations; because they were recently installed, they can't really be used to authoritatively detect meaningful climate anomalies yet. (In other words, the USCRN can't really say it was the hottest July ever if they've only been around for ten or so Julys.)

In the meantime, they can be used as a 'calibration' reference for the current surface network (old data), correcting the well-known issues in station records (siting issues, etc.) So they use the 'new' data to improve the quality issues in the 'old' data, while using the 'old' data to detect trends (hot months, etc.) If the 'old' stations have a bias of a degree or so, that can be corrected by using the 'new' data, but the trend will remain, with the magnitude adjusted according to guidance from the 'new' data.

Either way, a 'national average temperature' is a sketchy number to hang a hat on, especially when you're not comparing like datasets. If the COOP number is biased high, then the USCRN data will correct for that, but as I say, the trend will remain. Hope that helps clarify things somewhat.

So in other words
 

So in other words since the 1930's data was taken out in fields and the new "old" data is next to a runway showing increased temps and the data from the "new" new stations is showing cooler temps then the old "new" stations - thats proof of AGW?

You guys wake me up when the Vikings move back to Greenland.

I think real sientists have pretty well nailed down that for the last few thousand years the earth's temp has varied by more than a few degrees.

Interesting that some of the high points in civilization matched pretty well to the high points in temp. Hmmmm.

So would the many peoples of the earth be better off with a few degrees of warming - or of cooling?

Pretty high sun spot count today.

If the trend can be corrected in the manner described, and the trend is positive, it's evidence that the climate is warming, yes. Correcting the issues with the older record and preventing them for future observations is the purpose of the USCRN.

Respectfully, whether the trend is human-caused or not remains a separate issue, and is not an issue directly addressed by either myself or Watts.

That's also correct, and accurately detecting that variation is part of the plan. We're coming out of a cold era if you look at the long-term (> 500 000 year) record, and we're topping out higher than the ice core record would suggest. I think there's no disagreement about that, either from 'real' scientists or otherwise.

Again, respectfully, that's not an issue either Watts or I address. Ideally, that's a policy issue to be decided by government, using the most accurate observations possible. MOO, quasi-scientific 'analysis' by folk like Watts muddy, rather than clarify, that issue.

I'm happy to give you the last word, since this is your house, not mine. Before I retire to my corner (or get my figurative ruck thrown down the hall) I hope that the links I've provided will at least help defuse the notion that NOAA or other climate scientists are engaged in a large-scale conspiracy theory - the process of making accurate observations, and correcting long-term datasets, is subtly precise, more than a little arcane at times, and very susceptible to creative interpretation from uninvolved parties on both sides of the political fence. The latter is what I saw from Watts' blog, and I sought only to clarify the commentary on the data record as stated.

Not so I think
 

Not so I think.

I think it looks more like - Well, we have really good long term data from this stations - even though they report higher temps - we'll just keep using them - because - well - we've been using them a long time.

The longer you use bad data the more you can bend the Hockey Stick.

Government decides? Come on quit kidding around. This whole thread is about what government thinks - and government is in the tank for AGW.

vorticity - Thank you for attempting to clarify something that most non-scientists don't understand and that vested interests have worked diligently to make even more obscure/less accessible to the average person. I've been paying attention to weather since Boy Scout days and while I don't claim a farmer's or sailor's command of the practicalities, I do have a decent understanding of the science. IMNSHO AGW is BS - of the "make some people filthy rich" variety. I'm firmly in Pete's camp WRT warmer periods in global history - civilization can flourish a lot better with a couple degrees increase than it can with the same % of decrease. And that is just from purely natural cycles. NTM (ancient) Egyptian fashions are much more esthetic than (Ice Age) Inuit ones.

LOL! Common sense would should tell you it is going to be substantially warmer next to a road with no trees or foliage. Urban areas will likely be warmer than rural areas for the same reason.

I wonder what the temp readings are in, around and above a solar panel farm?

Solar flares may also be a factor in temps:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...lar-flare-yet/

And there is a possibility that the rotation of the earth has changed.....which may change where the sun hits, which might equate to a moving of the equator line.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rota...w=1360&bih=608


Wind mills, Solar panels and Cars with batteries with caustic acids aren't going to save mother earth....but they will make some rich.

That's what the USCRN network is correcting, and largely why the USCRN-derived mean temperature is lower than the older COOP-derived number. That doesn't mean that July wasn't still the hottest month on record for a lot of the country - it just changes what the hottest number is.

Solar and orbital changes are included in the estimate of climate change, with a computed impact of around 0.12 W/m2. Anthropogenic impacts are computed to be 1.6 W/m2, out of a total signal of ~3 W/m2. So solar affects are absolutely important, but they're coming in third behind human and Earthbound components of climate change.

That's one camp attempting to manipulate the conversation. I think you'll agree that the petroleum and coal industries also make some rich, and they have just as much motivation to manipulate as the 'greenies' do. The Watts blog post falls in this camp, IMHO.