UPDATE: Read meteorologist Joe D’Aleo: Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
And: Who needs Antarctic data or temps near ice.
********************************
Some government scientists, it seems, are so obsessed and convinced with their global warming theory that they’d rather alter the observed data to suit their theory than to alter their theory so that it agrees with the data.
Over the last day or so reports have been appearing, e.g. here and here, claiming June 2014 globally was the hottest ever recorded. However data from National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) show it’s not true (never mind all the cold reports coming from places ranging from Alabama, to the Alps, to Antarctica).
Unfortunately, some journalists are either too lazy or just too incompetent to check the facts.
At Twitter meteorologist Joe Bastardi has also posted a graphic comparing two charts from NCEP: June 2006 vs June 2014.
As NECP shows, June 2014 is significantly colder than 2006.
In fact, Joe provides a useful link that allows comparison for every year and every month.
Here are the NCEP CFSR global temperature results for June for the last 15 years with the ranking (warmest 1, coldest 15).
2014: +0.059 (12)
2013: +0.057 (13)
2012: +0.089 (9)
2011: +0.003 (14)
2010: +0.075 (10)
2009: 0.137 (6)
2008: 0.064 (11)
2007: 0.137 (6)
2006: 0.305 (2)
2005: 0.296 (3)
2004: 0.115 (8)
2003: +0.144 (5)
2002: 0.346 (1)
2001: 0.148 (4)
2000: -0.037 (15)
The data above illustrate a couple of things going on. Firstly, June 2014 is nowhere near “the warmest on record”. It is among the coldest of the 21st century.
Secondly the colder mean global June temperatures have occurred during the recent years, and the warmer ones earlier in the century (exception 2000), thus indicating that Junes have been cooling off. In fact, 4 of the 5 coldest Junes this century occurred in the last 5 years.
Indeed it’s little wonder that many areas are recording increasing number of cold events and the polar ice caps have been rebounding…all while dubious scientists have been claiming that the earth is heating up, backing such nonsensical claims with altered and tampered data. And at the rate the data fiddling is taking place and the earth is cooling off, we soon will be able to expect little ice age conditions at “record high” temperatures.
The only way the activist scientists will be able to save face, it seems, will be for the government to step in and declare climate data as official state secrets whose access will require special security clearances.
“require special security clearance”.. DON’T GIVE THEM IDEAS.
“government to step in and declare climate data as official state secrets”
At which point we will have to get climate data from Russia and China.
“government to step in and declare climate data as official state secrets ”
Of course.
In addition, I have it on good authority, that, just as the IRS has done, all the computers storing the data will suddenly and mysteriously have their hard drives crash. Amazin’ coincidence, n’est-ce pas?
EPA has already declared their “science data” to be secret and must be kept away from” people who are not qualified to analyze it.”
The EPA has already declared their “science data” to be secret. Otherwise it would fall into the hands of “people not qualified to analyze it.”
E. M. Smith has an interesting posting on this… maybe you have seen it.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/gistemp-who-needs-antarctic-data-or-temps-near-ice/
Turns out it’s Arctic data… being disappeared
There is a very small range in these numbers, namely -.037 to +.346. The years of 2013 and 2014 differ by .002. I don’t find it surprising that different agencies arrive at different results. If they all had exactly the same results, all but one could be eliminated.
What is strange is that news organizations (your links to Forbes and Daily Mail; and likely many others) make such a big deal of almost nothing. I guess this allows them to ignore the fact that Earth’s atmosphere is not warming.
Our local weather forecast at about 10 PM Monday did not mention rain. Rain started at 3 AM and continued to 7 AM. I’ve about given up on any sort of atmospheric modeling. They have now added isolated showers to the day’s forecast and thunderstorms for Wednesday. What are the odds?
Pierre,
Could you please give us your justification for why you think a reanalysis better represents reality than all the instrumental (and satellite) records out there?
This is the NCEP CFSR global timeseries (T2m) from 1979 to 2010:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icfsr_t2m_0-360E_90–90N_na.png
To me this absolutely doesn’t look right as it doesn’t fit with any other global temperature time series I’ve seen …
See UPDATE above, Joe D’Aleo
Pierre,
This is the NCEP CFSR global timeseries (T2m) from 1979 to 2010:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icfsr_t2m_0-360E_90–90N_na.png
To me this absolutely doesn’t look right as it doesn’t fit with any other global temperature time series I’ve seen …
Could you please give us your justification for why you think this reanalysis better represents reality than all the instrumental (and satellite) records out there?
Pierre,
You have a typo in the 4th paragraph just above Joe’s image. You cite the first year as 1996 when it should actually be 2006.
Thanks!
Wouldn’t it be great if climate scientists could agree upon a “Dow Jones”- like standard for the mean atmospheric surface temperature (e.g., land-based sensors)?
In order to minimise criticism, the sensors in question should be of the highest quality and calibrated regularly by independent sources.
The primary concern is in latitudes where human civilisation is prevalent (one would think). It would be equally important to avoid Urban Heat Island effects.
Shouldn’t it be possible to select 100-200 high-quality temperature sensors per major land mass, e.g., from 60S-60N latitude (at a minimum spacing from obvious human-caused heat sources) and JUST TRACE THESE going forward?
(We all know the Arctic and Antarctic can show larger swings than the temperate zones — but the goal should be to establish a baseline for determining clear TRENDS which everyone could hopefully agree upon).
The battles of satellite vs. land vs. land-sea, vs. reanalysis, … is getting tedious. Ditto for the various smoothing algorithms. This just foments confirmation bias. Apologists and Skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming alike tend to favour their pet datasets.
Which gets us nowhere.
Kurt in Switzerland
Is this what you want?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/#comment-429520
I like the constant station series. Stop there.
But the differences he takes are limited in value.
… and if the stations selected are not well-distributed geographically, take FEWER readings from those regions which are over-represented. Avoid algorithms to weight limited data sets, as this can bias the results in a way which might go against the actual trends from the data.
My thoughts, in any case.
Pierre: Please keep in mind that the NCEP CFSR.v2 is a reanalysis (the output of a computer model) and not data. There are few actual measurements of marine air temperature, so the air temperatures 2 meters above the oceans (70% of the surface) are computer-generated estimates. They may be based on sea surface temperatures, but they are not actual readings of marine air temperature.
And we have to keep in mind that there are numerous other reanalyses. If all of the reanalyses disagreed with the actual global surface temperature data, then the surface temperature data might be suspect. The fact that one reanalysis disagrees doesn’t tell us much.
Bob,
Thank you for a sensible, level-headed clarification.
Could you share your thoughts on my suggestion above?
The 21st century began 1/1/2001 so no “exception” required for 2000. It has been cooling in the 21st C.