2012 Hottest Year on Record

The Y2K Data Hackers At NASA | Real Science

 

If NASA has corrupted the temperature data that is very bad, but I don't believe that has happened. I thought BEST tried to get all the raw data and was able to in US. Please correct this if its wrong.

The data has been adjusted as I clearly stated in my previous post, and we are looking at NCDC data, not GISS data. If the GISS is corrupt today, that does not mean that NOAAs NCDC data is corrupt. There are a great deal of people at BEST and other places looking for corrupt data, and trying to model bad data.

 

AustinG @ 40 I have said the same thing about crude oil and whales, here. Or almost the same thing; not ot a strong fan of overstating the case. Any case.

Now having had my first actual peek at the BEST USA T record, there are some interesting differences with respect to NOAA. For one thing, the warmest 30 years include 1932, 34, 35, 38, and 39. That decade has been the focus of much discussion

I am not sure whether making annual averages centered on different months will change that in detail, but I am sure that any 'windowing' of BEST will leave a lot of the 1930's in this group. If other data analyses have moved the 1930's out of this group by 'unsavory' means, that will not help us understand the instrumental record. Will not help us to develop political consensus.

 

Another 'wordpress' from mojo @ 41. Makin' me wish I was not behind the great firewall. If it says anything about science, please pass it along.

 

Sure, here is Watts showing the NCDC data up to 2010. You can see 1934 is large.
NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder | Watts Up With That?


The 2012 record is 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees we need to adjust temperatures. The NCDC's adjustments are peer reviewed. Watts seemed fine with the ncdc raw data until this year. BEST adjustments are public, but have not yet completed peer review.

The key was an argument against fudging data. This is the original data from NASA.



http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

 

Mostly the same info here.
Was Last Year Really The Hottest Ever In The US? « NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

 

The current NOAA claim is that 2012 is 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998, but 1934 used to be 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998. This means that prior to adjustment, 1934 was hotter than 2012.
"The blink comparator below shows the huge changes which have been made to the US temperature record since 1999. The past has been massively cooled, and the present has been massively warmed. A cooling trend has been turned into a warming trend, by adjusting the data."

 

Mojo, as I responded to you before, that was NASA, never NOAA that had that data. Everyone agrees that data should be adjusted. As I posted the raw data from your link 1934 GISS was .25 degrees warmer than 1998, unadjusted for thermometer locations or times of readings. Even watts has said this will cause large systemic errors if you don't adjust for these things. Then your paper seems to want to go to some other measure, then a third. Let's just stick to this one. NASA GISS 1934 is .25 degrees C warmer than 1998, NOAA NCDC has 2012 0.55 degrees C warmer than 1998, unadjusted. That leaves the mutated GISS/NCDC unadjusted graph as 2012 0.3 degrees C warmer than 1934. That should be within the error bars of adjusted temperature, but on the very low end, it is likely that 1934 was cooler than that, but still a very hot year.

I'm not sure what all the convoluted reasoning is behind watts trying to change the temperature record here. GHG climate change should be seen in the global temperature record, not the regional US one. The regional one is affected but much more effected by ENSO. The dust bowl was a worse drought. 2012 doesn't rate for the most extreme unless you have funky measures of that.

I gave you the NCDC explanations for adjustments. These techniques have been peer reviewed. Some thermometers are moved up and some down depending on changes. The B.E.S.T. techniques are different, and are going through peer review. I did post the NCDC record from watts so that you could see he didn't seem to have a huge complaint in 2010 about these things. He did note the change and now reading McIntyre explained that GISS failed to adjust for changing the times of temperature readings. Bad on Hanson for graphing data as if it had been adjusted. It appears at least according to McIntyre that GISS used at least part of the NCDC algorithms. He doesn't like these, but they are open and have been peer reviewed. This is the raw data from your link not the graph that appears to be incorrect
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006 . Note graphing the wrong data is a good reason to take it down from your website, but NASA claims technical difficulties on the link. That is a long time for technical difficulties. Hansen could simply add a note before the paper telling what was done wrong in 1999.

I like the adjusted graph here
U.S. experiences warmest and second most extreme weather year ever recorded in 2012 - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post

 

Does everyone here (Mojo included) think that BEST has a fair temperature analyis? If so, we could just work with those. If not, somebody else is going to have to pick up the ball. It would be very helpful if we had a T history series that most everybody could agree upon.

 

HARRIS AND BALL: 2012 probably not the hottest on record, after all - Washington Times

 

Monday and Tuesday I had to drive through a bit of your escaped Alaskan cold air that had fingers reaching parts of Tennessee. Tuesday morning, I saw a 30 mile stretch of icy tree limbs and power lines . . . but it all melted this afternoon on the way home.

The past four days, we've had a classic influx of tropic air that had the cold air been a little chillier and come a little further south would have turned into one of those every decade or so Southern snow storms. But it was and remains a weak cold air slug and no doubt will be gone in another couple of days.

Bob Wilson

 

^ your welcome Bob.

Can't say I enjoyed seeing our snow all but go... I am really missing my snow-shoeing!

 

WOLF!!!!!!

 

Bob Wilson

 

One of the techniques I use with 'noisy' data is to plot the local maximums and local minimums. The assumption is the unknown average is somewhere between the two and graphically you can sometimes pickup interesting artifacts. In this case, the 1955-72 range seems unusually calm . . . I wonder why?

I'm used to dealing with network communications data that often has more than one, independent, driving source. Sometimes we are very lucky and find two or more forcing functions that have periods that occasionally overlap. If you are familiar with a Fourier analysis, it is a similar principle . . . the sum of independent functions. If you have known functions such as solar radiance output, it could be subtracted from the data in the hope of revealing the next strongest, forcing function. . . . More 'art' than 'math', sometimes you are lucky.

Bob Wilson

 

ENSO and other oscillations along with the solar cycles contribute to high and low variance. In other words natural variation is responsible. Natural variation is much more pronounced on a region like the continental US than on the globe.

Solar radiation and ENSO are the two large driving forces on the chart. ENSO is poorly modeled. We have better predictions on the solar cycles, but NASA got this last one a little wrong. We do have good figures for past solar radiation in recent years. There is a debate on if sun spots are a good proxy as well as temperture for estimating solar radiation further back.

 

The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

 

Sorry Moj, but you really must adjust your tin foil hat!

You must be spending too much time in the sun.

icarus