Monday, August 08, 2011

NOAA: Heat wave leads to fourth warmest July on record for the U.S.

NOAA says last month was the 4th warmest July in the US records, 2.7 F above the 1901-2000 average.

They also say July saw the largest "exceptional" drought footprint--their most severe category--though their drought index is only 12 years old. In their press release they write "Drought conditions at several locations in the South region are not as long lived, but are as dry, or drier, than the historic droughts of the 1930s and 1950s." 75% of Texas is in a drought condition.

NOAA: "Drought conditions are so harsh in some locations that it would take as much as 20 inches of precipitation in one month to end the drought. In Oklahoma, 100 percent of the state is suffering from moderate-exceptional drought compared to the beginning of the water year (9/28/2010), when drought conditions covered only four percent of the state."

The press release isn't on the Web yet; I'll link to it when it is. (UPDATE: Here is it.)


The Croquist said...


What do you think of Anthony Watts' audit of the USHCN surface stations? I know you're not a fan of his but I think that his results are significant.

PS: The word verification I need to use is "pigsku". It seems appropriate considering that the NFL is back.

Dano said...

What do you think of Anthony Watts' audit of the USHCN surface stations?

He didn't really "audit" them, but his 'results' barely differ from the surface record. So in the denialist world its a non-event naturally. In the regular world its "who"?



The Croquist said...

I think he absolutely DID audit them. Of the 1,221 or so stations, 1,007 or 82 percent were reviewed. Not all of the inspections were done very well but enough were inspected to show that the quality control of the USHCN was, to put it bluntly, non-existent.

92% of the stations failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth by NOAA itself. Any sampling of a product that has a 92% failure rate has to make any reasonable person question the quality of the product itself. Actually any reasonable person wouldn’t question the quality of the product. They would justifiably call it crap. Would you buy a car brand when 92% of the ones on the lot won’t start? How about a refrigerator that, after delivery, has a 92% chance of not cooling and needs to be replaced with an identical refrigerator that has a 92% chance of not cooling?

The statement “but his 'results' barely differ from the surface record” is simply not true. His results were the only results out there. No one else ever bothered to do a quality check on the stations. I read the paper that took 60 or so of what Watts classified as CRN 1 or 2 and showed that the warming they demonstrated was similar to the warming that all 1,221 stations showed but that didn’t address the point of the Watts survey. The entire point of the survay was to check the current quality of the stations and they absolutely failed.

The fact that 60 quality stations showed something is not a valid defense of the fact that 92% of the stations are crap. There is no defense for 92% of the stations being crap. This is a failure of NOAA and instead of acknowledging it; NOAA’s defense is “it doesn’t matter”. It certainly does matter. Why bother installing 1,000 stations if they are worthless? “Adjusting” them for problems only works if you know what the problems are to begin with.

Then there is the little matter that the Watts survey could only determine what the current quality of the stations are. It can’t go back 10, 20, 50 or 130 years ago to check the quality of the stations back then. Neither can NOAA. Their rebuttal assumed that the quality of the 60 stations they used were always acceptable. When 92% of the current stations fail that is an unreasonable assumption.

I can go on ranting but hopefully this will be food for thought.

Dano said...

Ewwwwps. Sorry to waste your bytes David on recycled debunked talking points.



The Croquist said...


You post that Watts didn't really audit the surface stations. I reply that 82% of them were reviewed.

You post that his results barely differ from the surface record. I reply that there was no NOAA audit to compare it to.

Then, instead of addressing my statements you claim that what I said has been debunked without any support for your statement. Who is in denial here Dano?