Melrose Colorado Climate Reference Network Station
We have heard it on the progressive news, July was the hottest month on record according to NOAA. In the August issue of Comstock’ Magazine, an author declares July 2017 the hottest month on record. All this hottest ever raised some question, what was the hottest month in California? Previous analysis had indicated maximum summer temperatures were declining details HERE.
One of the issues is how was the hottest month measured; there are several options. Option one is the existing network of weather stations. Option two is satellites, and option three is the Climate Reference Network (CRN). The Surface Stations project found over 90% of long term stations had siting issues that would produce a warm bias of >= 1C. UHI was a significant factor.
The CRN was established in 2004 to counter the urban heat island influence that was distorting temperatures of the existing networks of weather stations. The hottest temperature reported in the news is the product of the current system, not satellites or the CRN.
What does the CRN have to say about the hottest month? The CRN network has 143 stations in the United States, seven of them in California, all located in remote areas well away for urban influences.
Example of remote locations
Bodega Bay CRN
Following plots are the Maximum July temperatures at California CRN stations:
2017 Hottest Month
2015 the Hottest Month
2006 the Hottest Month
Looking at Merced over a longer period these were some of the max July temperatures: 1906 – 40.18, 1908 – 38.6, 1931 – 39.6, 1933 – 38.5, 1967 -38.1, 1988 – 38.4.
2018 the Hottest Month
2017 the Hottest Month
2018 the Hottest Month
2018 the Hottest Month
As you can see from the graphics the CRN stations did not have the hottest July in 2019. The hottest July was scattered all across the period from 2004 to 2019. When was the hottest CA CRN maximum:
As you can see the CRN Hottest Months are all over the state and different times of the year. And, when we look at the satellite temperature we can see that July was not the warmest month. According to Dr. Roy Spencer, “July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years.” Details HERE.
So, when you here the lamestream press touting the warmest or hottest month of the year, you might want to be cautious, as the progressive press maybe just advancing an agenda and not reporting the facts.
NOAA has spent billions of tax payers dollars to send up satellites to monitor the weather and thus climate of the Earth. It pays two different scientific groups, UAH and RSS to produce global temperature data sets of the Earth’s atmosphere, but routinely ignores them when is needs to push Climate Catastrophism.
Those who choose to read a full, scientific explanation as to why July 2019 was NOT the hottest ever should refer back to Dr. Roy Spencer’s piece on this site published on 2 August, July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record.
For those who are visual learners, I offer graphs of the two satellite based global temperature records that NOAA ignores when making “hottest ever” declarations, first the graphs from Remote Sensing Systems:
It is interesting to note how different the visual impression is between the most recent data and the longer term data. In the top image of “recent” data, the trend line from the full dataset is included — it is not the trend of the recent data. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the data is functionally flat (or even downtrending if one wishes to start at the 2016 peak).
Just so we know what we are talking about, the Lower Troposphere is the part of the atmosphere in which most of us live. This little image, from UCAR, helps a bit. Earth’s tallest mountains are at almost 30,000 feet, just under the 10 km top of the troposphere. The tops of Tropical Thunderstorms can reach as high as 12.5 km. Down in the lower troposphere, we have everyday weather events, ground level temperatures, the winds that stir the trees and other weather and climate phenomena experienced by most humans. Those of your who climb or hike the high peaks of the Sierras in California, as I have, have gone up out the top of the LowerTroposphere, the same with the highest peaks of the Rocky Mountains.
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) is a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites across the conterminous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These stations use high-quality instruments to measure temperature, precipitation, wind speed, soil conditions, and more. Information is available on what is measured and the USCRN station instruments.
The vision of the USCRN program is to provide a continuous (more accurate) series of climate observations for monitoring trends in the nation’s climate and supporting climate-impact research.
The Surface Stations project found over 90% of long term stations had siting issues that would produce a warm bias of >= 1C. UHI was also a factor.
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards and were especially egregious and required changes. They did not consider UHI.
Update: HERE is a link to a larger graphic is the Long Study.
The CRN was established based on the work of John Christy. Tom Karl tried to get funding for a complete network but was told by NOAA, the satellites were the future and they refused to fund the complete replacement though some additions were made. The current network has 137 stations (up from 114). By definition they provide proper siting and are not UHI contaminated.
A review of state-of-the-art climate data tells a different story than what NOAA tells the public.
While media outlets scream “hottest ever” for the world in June and July (it’s summer) and opportunistic climate crusaders use those headlines to push the idea of a “climate crisis” the reality is for USA is that so far most of 2019 has been below normal, temperature-wise.
Little known data from the state of the art U.S. Climate Reference Network (which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly “state of the climate” reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal, shown in bold below.
Above: Table 1, U.S. average temperature anomaly from October 2018 to June 2019. Full data file here
Note the below average value for June, 2019 at -0.14°F
The data, taken directly from NOAA’s national climate data page, shows not only that much of 2019 was below average, but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started.
The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) was established to give the most accurate temperature readings compared to the old Cooperative Observer Network (COOP) which suffers from urban encroachment, siting problems, and a multitude of human induced inhomgeneities such as station moves, incomplete data, closed stations, and runway condition stations at airports that were never designed to report climate data.
Readers here know of my work to highlight these problems, and as a result, there was a 2011 report by the GAO about the problems with the old COOP network. They investigated a subset of the larger COOP network (The USHCN) and said:
According to GAO’s survey of weather forecast offices, about 42 percent of the active stations in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards. With regard to management requirements, GAO found that the weather forecast offices had generally but not always met the requirements to conduct annual station inspections and to update station records. NOAA officials told GAO that it is important to annually visit stations and keep records up to date, including siting conditions, so that NOAA and other users of the data know the conditions under which they were recorded. NOAA officials identified a variety of challenges that contribute to some stations not adhering to siting standards and management requirements, including the use of temperature measuring equipment that is connected by a cable to an indoor readout device— which can require installing equipment closer to buildings than specified in the siting standards.
NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards and the requirement to update station records, and it does not have an agency wide policy regarding stations that do not meet its siting standards. Performance management guidelines call for using performance information to assess program results. NOAA’s information systems, however, are not designed to centrally track whether stations in the USHCN meet its siting standards or the requirement to update station records. Without centrally available information, NOAA cannot easily measure the performance of the USHCN in meeting siting standards and management requirements.
NOAA’s response? Rather than fix it, they closed reporting the USHCN subset of COOP stations in 2012. They now say this on their climate data page:
National USHCN monthly temperature updates have been discontinued. The official CONUS temperature record is now based upon nClimDiv. USHCN data for January 1895 to August 2014 will remain available for historical comparison.
Yet, while the USHCN was closed, and the data from it are no longer reported in the monthly and yearly NOAA climate reports, the problems identified in the USHCN persist in the larger COOP Network, of which several thousand stations remain:
All NOAA did was treat the visible symptoms we identified (by excising them), while leaving the larger disease uncured, and continuing to use the majority of data in it, data with the same sort of problems and inhomgeneities discovered in the USHCN subset. The USHCN was 1218 station out of over 8700 COOP stations, and that remaining data is used to calculate the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset used to report “official” temperature averages today. Basically all they did was sweep the problem under the rug, and report that they have algorithms to “fix” bad data.
In any other branch of science, in the stock market, or in criminal forensics, “bad” data would be thrown out as unreliable.
Meanwhile, perfectly good data gets ignored in favor of “fixed” bad data. NOAA says this about the new state-of-the-art Climate Reference Network network:
The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a sustainable high-quality climate observation network that 50 years from now can with the highest degree of confidence answer the question: How has the climate of the Nation changed over the past 50 years?
These stations were designed with climate science in mind. Three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation are made at each station, insuring continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations. The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.
The data from the rest of the world, as reported by NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network is largely composed of the same type of stations, with an equal to or even greater (due to lack of consistent quality control) set of data problems.
Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t seem to think the data from this state-of-the-art US Climate Reference Network is worth reporting to the public. A scan of the last 5 years of yearly and monthly “State of the Climate” reports has not a single mention of this high quality data, preferring to cite the data from the old COOP network instead, now repackaged as the U.S. Climate Divisional Dataset.
In fact, for the June 2019 State of the Climate Report, NOAA is claiming that the US was 0.2Fabove average in June, when in fact the US Climate Reference Network reported the June data as below average at -0.14°F
The June contiguous U.S. temperature was 68.7°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average, ranking in the middle third of the 125-year record.
It seems NOAA can’t even agree on reporting what the actual temperature of the United States is on a monthly basis, using their own old and unreliable data, while neglecting to report the best data they have. Why?
That’s a travesty of government incompetence worth investigating.
One wonders if screaming headlines about “hottest ever” this month would even exist if the world had a global version of the U.S. Climate Reference Network where the data was quality controlled, and measurements taken far away from the human-induced heat of urbanization.
This is important information as Publisher of The Union our local newspaper holds NOAA and NASA up as paragons of the scientific truth. After reading this report would you believe NOAA’s climate assessments?
An then there is this:
A new daily low-temperature record was set in International Falls, MN, where the mercury dipped to 37 degrees, breaking the record (38 degrees) set back in 1898.
In the Sac Bee, this evening was an article indicating more fevered Democrats think that humans can control the climate by adjusting the amount of trace gas in our atmosphere.
According to a poll from the Public Policy Institute of California released Monday, a plurality of Republican likely voters — 35 percent — say the effects of global warming “will never happen,” while another 20 percent say the effects won’t happen in their lifetime but will affect future generations. Thirty-one percent of Republicans believe the effects are already being felt.
Meanwhile, 85 percent of Democratic likely voters and 59 percent of Independents say the consequences of global warming have already begun.
If the world is warming why are max temperatures declining, details HERE?
Note the tiny red line on the right side of the Greenland ICE Core graphic below. The red line is the current warming in a global cooling cycle. Look at the magnitude of the other changes throughout history, do you think humans are responsible for the red line warming? If, so please make your case in the comments.