bluewave Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The first seven months of 2012 were the warmest on record for the contiguous United States as a whole, and for many locations across the United States. The following table shows, for about 180 long-term stations, how Jan-Jul 2012 stacks up against normal, and where it ranks among that station's history. The unusualness score is based upon the number of standard deviations difference between the 2012 value and the station's average, based on the station's history. The national average of 56.4°F was 4.3°F above the long-term average http://www.ncdc.noaa.../7/supplemental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 I think everyone knows it was due to the adjustments. Is the hottest July ever for the lower 48 due to correct adjustments, that is the better question. We have a winner, folks! It took Ben less than an hour to trot out his pet conspiracy theory that the NCDC has adjusted the temperature record for nefarious 'political' reasons. Ben, you may be a denier, but you are great for consistency. Of course, given that the BEST project found in their analysis that the adjustments were done well, and that they didn't affect the US temperature record or trends that can only mean That the BEST team members are part of the conspiracy, or Ben is wrong and he is off on the fringe with his 'adjustment' obsession. I'll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves which option seems more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 NOAA announced that July, 2012, was the hottest July ever recorded for the lower 48. From the NOAA SOTC post: Drought expands to cover nearly 63% of the Lower 48; wildfires consume 2 million acres The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895. Precipitation totals were mixed during July, with the contiguous U.S. as a whole being drier than average. The nationally averaged precipitation total of 2.57 inches was 0.19 inch below average. Near-record dry conditions were present for the middle of the nation, with the drought footprint expanding to cover nearly 63 percent of the Lower 48, according the U.S. Drought Monitor. Now, any guesses on how long it will take for the deniers on this forum to claim that July was only hottest because of 'adjustments'? Here you go Philip. Enjoy! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Here you go Philip. Enjoy! http://wattsupwithth...erence-network/ Apples and oranges. Why compare the most optimized, state-of-the-art measuring network to the old temperatures when such a network did not exist in 1936? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 We have a winner, folks! It took Ben less than an hour to trot out his pet conspiracy theory that the NCDC has adjusted the temperature record for nefarious 'political' reasons. Ben, you may be a denier, but you are great for consistency. Of course, given that the BEST project found in their analysis that the adjustments were done well, and that they didn't affect the US temperature record or trends that can only mean That the BEST team members are part of the conspiracy, or Ben is wrong and he is off on the fringe with his 'adjustment' obsession. I'll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves which option seems more likely. Nice try. It isn't just me. There are well credentialed folks that also question the adjustments. Roy Spencer; And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments. So, all things considered (including unresolved issues about urban heat island effects and other large corrections made to the USHCN data), I would say July was unusually warm. But the long-term integrity of the USHCN dataset depends upon so many uncertain factors, I would say it’s a stretch to to call July 2012 a “record”. It is fairly obvious that there is an Urban Heat Island effect in the data which went into the first plot above, with the most populous stations generally showing the most warming, and the lowest population locations showing the least warming (or even cooling) since 1943. For those statisticians out there, the standard error of the calculated regression slope is 29% of the slope value. So, returning to the first plot above, it is entirely possible that the early part of the record was just warm as recent years, if UHI adjustments were made. Unfortunately, it is not obvious how to make such adjustments accurately. It must be remembered that the 2nd plot above only shows the relative UHI warming of higher population stations compared to the lower population stations, and previous studies have suggested that even the lower population stations experience warming as well. In fact, published studies have shown that most of the spurious UHI warming is observed early in population growth, with less warming as population grows even larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Here you go Philip. Enjoy! http://wattsupwithth...erence-network/ Nice post. So this wasn't really even close to a record, nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I had never heard of this new record system (USCRN). This will provide remarkable data going forward since its launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Here you go Philip. Enjoy! http://wattsupwithth...erence-network/ Complete stupidity. The CRN, and the equipment comprising it, didn't even exist in 1936. Not a valid comparison at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 How do we know the 1936 temperature was accurate? Maybe it was actually two degrees cooler than reported, too? I mean, you can't say the current measurement has errors without taking into account the errors in the measurement from the year you are comparing it to. Maybe this is why there are adjustments to the temperature observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Complete stupidity. The CRN, and the equipment comprising it, didn't even exist in 1936. Not a valid comparison at all. Neither did much of the cement and urban growth as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Actually, looking at the CRN sites, I'm shocked the difference is only two degrees. No way these sites are more representative of the average U.S. temperature. They are pretty much all in the middle of nowhere, and disproportionately located at high elevations. Simply averaging them would not produce a reasonable estimate for U.S. temperature. For instance, the only site in West Virginia is located at the Canaan Valley State Park at 3,410' elevation. From the data, the average high there was 76.8 and average low 59.0, with a mean of 67.9F. Does anyone think the temperature for this site better represents the temperature of West Virginia than that reported by the USHCN network? http://www1.ncdc.noa...state_lores.pdf With ideal siting and state-of-the art equipment, this data will be a beneficial in the future in better tracking climate changes due to greenhouse gas warming, but it cannot be directly compared to existing USHCN data. That's just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Actually, looking at the CRN sites, I'm shocked the difference is only two degrees. No way these sites are more representative of the average U.S. temperature. They are pretty much all in the middle of nowhere, and disproportionately located at high elevations. Simply averaging them would not produce a reasonable estimate for U.S. temperature. For instance, the only site in West Virginia is located at the Canaan Valley State Park at 3,410' elevation. From the data, the average high there was 76.8 and average low 59.0, with a mean of 67.9F. Does anyone think the temperature for this site better represents the temperature of West Virginia than that reported by the USHCN network? http://www1.ncdc.noa...state_lores.pdf With ideal siting and state-of-the art equipment, this data will be a beneficial in the future in better tracking climate changes due to greenhouse gas warming, but it cannot be directly compared to existing USHCN data. That's just ridiculous. Maybe we can place a few AC units and cement slabs around the CRN sites, to replicate the increase in UHI and site contamination. This will give us a good baseline for future "adjusting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 How do we know the 1936 temperature was accurate? Maybe it was actually two degrees cooler than reported, too? I mean, you can't say the current measurement has errors without taking into account the errors in the measurement from the year you are comparing it to. Maybe this is why there are adjustments to the temperature observations. Have you studied the dust bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Maybe we can place a few AC units and cement slabs around the CRN sites, to replicate the increase in UHI and site contamination. This will give us a good baseline for future "adjusting". Well, at least if you're going to compare the CRN sites to the USHCN sites from 1936, it would make sense to limit the comparison only to the closest sites in location and elevation. At least, then you would be comparing gala apples to granny smiths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Have you studied the dust bowl? Specifically, which part of it should I study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Of course, given that the BEST project found in their analysis that the adjustments were done well, and that they didn't affect the US temperature record or trends that can only mean That the BEST team members are part of the conspiracy, or Ben is wrong and he is off on the fringe with his 'adjustment' obsession. I'll leave it to the readers to decide for themselves which option seems more likely. A good blog post today from Anthony Watts today looking at the USCRN database. Looks like July was about 2.1 degrees F cooler than that found by NOAA NCDC. I'm not saying these are apples and apples comparison but it is interesting none the less. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 A good blog post today from Anthony Watts today looking at the USCRN database. Looks like July was about 2.1 degrees F cooler than that found by NOAA NCDC. I'm not saying these are apples and apples comparison but it is interesting none the less. LINK The entire controversy of climate change revolves around a less techinological era transitioning into modern technological era. I don't think the original site placing of surface stations was done with malice. Its just that 1-3 degrees of site contamination is the same range of temps the earth has "warmed" since they were placed. The CRN network of stations was developed to eliminate all the problems that were never thought of the first time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The entire controversy of climate change revolves around a less techinological era transitioning into modern technological era. I don't think the original site placing of surface stations was done with malice. Its just that 1-3 degrees of site contamination is the same range of temps the earth has "warmed" since they were placed. The CRN network of stations was developed to eliminate all the problems that were never thought of the first time around. I know UHI has been discussed numerous times but even small towns have an UHI. Growing up in a small town of around 3,000 people, I would ride my bicycle out of town on a clear, calm Summer evening and the difference in temperature was amazing. I would have to say about 10 degrees. I think the difference between an open field of grass and downtown intersection on a clear calm night is more than a lot of people realize. Yes, I do realize this has nothing to do with the Spring of 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I know UHI has been discussed numerous times but even small towns have an UHI. Growing up in a small town of around 3,000 people, I would ride my bicycle out of town on a clear, calm Summer evening and the difference in temperature was amazing. I would have to say about 10 degrees. I think the difference between an open field of grass and downtown intersection on a clear calm night is more than a lot of people realize. Yes, I do realize this has nothing to do with the Spring of 2012. Its a far bigger issue that seems to be dismissed and excused as "accounted for". Look, the arctic is declining and there has been some warming. The warming is probably half of what is showing up in GISS. This July was shown to be about 2 degrees lower then GISS, by CRN. CRN is probably closer to what many/most surface stations were like BEFORE urban buildup. I focus on Michigan sites and have found most to be contaminated in my state, a few Upper Peninsula stations are quite untouched and they show a +0.30 increase since 1900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roardog Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Its a far bigger issue that seems to be dismissed and excused as "accounted for". Look, the arctic is declining and there has been some warming. The warming is probably half of what is showing up in GISS. This July was shown to be about 2 degrees lower then GISS, by CRN. CRN is probably closer to what many/most surface stations were like BEFORE urban buildup. I focus on Michigan sites and have found most to be contaminated in my state, a few Upper Peninsula stations are quite untouched and they show a +0.30 increase since 1900. I guess I just don't get how you "account" for something that can be drastically different from one city to the next. Is a hypothetical town that went from 1000 people to 3000 people "accounted" for too? It just bugs me when we're talking tenths of a degree. There is just such a small margin for error. A small error can make a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I guess I just don't get how you "account" for something that can be drastically different from one city to the next. Is a hypothetical town that went from 1000 people to 3000 people "accounted" for too? It just bugs me when we're talking tenths of a degree. There is just such a small margin for error. A small error can make a huge difference. The U.P shows a smaller increase in temps then the L.P. Is it coincidence that the U.P hasn't gained any population in like 30 years? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The CRN network of stations was developed to eliminate all the problems that were never thought of the first time around. Yet NOAA rarely uses/mentions their CRN network or compares it to their sister stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Yet NOAA rarely uses/mentions their CRN network or compares it to their sister stations. Gaylord, MI uses the airport for official record apparently. The temps recorded at their CRN site generally registers between 0.5 - 2.0 degrees lower on average. Both sites are within 100 feet elevation, one has a concrete runway near by, the other is in a field. Guess which one is the CRN site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Gaylord, MI uses the airport for official record apparently. The temps recorded at their CRN site generally registers between 0.5 - 2.0 degrees lower on average. Both sites are within 100 feet elevation, one has a concrete runway near by, the other is in a field. Guess which one is the CRN site. I did some research into the Bowling Green station tonight. It is the closest CRN station to Nashville. Bowling Green Airport station is used by NCDC and the Bowling Green CRN station sits out in a field at Mammoth Cave National Park. Guess which one was 3 to 4 degrees warmer for the month of July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Since the US July discussion is in here, I'll post the link of NOAA's rebuttal to Watts' criticisms of the measurements: https://nes.ncdc.noa...ICLE_SEARCH:360 When looking at anomalies instead of absolute temperature and using the same base period, making it an apples-to-apples comparison, the USCRN and USHCN are in full agreement. This also confirms that July 2012 was the warmest July since 1895. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Since the US July discussion is in here, I'll post the link of NOAA's rebuttal to Watts' criticisms of the measurements: https://nes.ncdc.noa...ICLE_SEARCH:360 The problem is that most urban buildup and landform changes took place WELL before CRN was put together. I would guess that the data would line up perfectly. Until we have another growth explosion of building, the data will probably line up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 This month may be the first in awhile with a decent chunk of below normal temps in the US. Edit I forgot June had some below normal temps in the southeast and on north west coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 This month may be the first in awhile with a decent chunk of below normal temps in the US. You have to go back to last September to see a large area of negative monthly temperature departures over portions of the Plains and Midwest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 You have to go back to last September to see a large area of negative monthly temperature departures over portions of the Plains and Midwest. Yea this upcoming weeks cool shot should really hammer in some more -departures will just have to see if they will last threw the end of the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.