You know the tune - -
"Home, home on the range,
Where the deer and the antelope play."
Photo - Johnnygunn
Well, this week the antelope were gallivanting across the Laramie Plains and Shirley Basin in Wyoming. The region, characterized by average precipitation of 10 inches per year or less, has never been greener. Or at least in the past twenty years. And yet, NOAA has the region of south central Wyoming listed as in extreme drought.
Image NOAA - Public Domain
Asterisk Denotes Rawlins
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/...
The liberal tradition is one of open debate and critique. I place myself within a rather small group of persons – a left critic of current climate change data, modeling, and derived policy initiatives. I believe burning fossil fuels to power jet skis and to move Hummers down the highway is unsustainable, environmentally unethical, and obscenely wasteful – but I also believe that making extreme climate predictions linked to carbon dioxide is nearly as dangerous if those predictions fail to materialize. Much as Paul Ehrlich’s dire predictions in The Population Bomb set back the issue of rampant human population growth for two generations – so too, an excessive focus on carbon-linked climate change may undercut other environmental challenges by redirecting public attention and reducing critical funding in an era of limited budgets.
<<<>>>
To return to southern Wyoming –
Here is what Shirley Basin looked like on June 18, 2009 –
a year with 200% of normal precipitation to date.
Photo - Johnnygunn
And here is what the nearby Alcova Byway looked like on June 20, 2008 –
a year with close to normal precipitation.
Photo - BLM Public Domain
http://www.blm.gov/...
Does the 2009 image look anything like extreme drought? Granted, the region had rainfall deficits in 2006 and 2007; however, arid environments are characterized by extreme variability in precipitation with their ecosystems adapted to such variability. Here is a list of precipitation totals at nearby Rawlins, Wyoming – the closest station with daily and monthly information available online.
Rawlins, Wyoming
2009 Precipitation thru June 20
January –
Total for Month: 1.40
Dptr fm Normal: +0.84
February –
Total for Month: 0.55
Dptr fm Normal: +0.03
March –
Total for Month: 1.37
Dptr fm Normal: +0.72
April –
Total for Month: 3.92
Dptr fm Normal: +2.86
May –
Total for Month: 1.90
Dptr fm Normal: +0.41
June thru 6-20 –
Total for Month: 1.71
Dptr fm Normal: +1.11
Total precipitation to date – 10.85 inches
Total average precipitation – 4.88 inches
Departure from normal – +5.97 inches
http://www.weather.gov/...
Not only has there been above normal precipitation in 2009, but there has been above normal precipitation in every month. It is not surprising that the grasslands of Shirley Basin are lush and that the antelope are playing.
I must ask, "What went wrong at NOAA?" Is their data incorrect? It is possible that the Rawlins rainfall totals are wrong, but evidence on the ground suggests that those are probably correct. It is possible that data has been entered into the system incorrectly. That is relatively easy to correct. Or it could be that the algorithm for determining degree of drought is faulty – faulty in general or faulty in its application to arid environments. That is the more serious concern.
<<<>>>
The grasslands of southern Wyoming are only one example of problematic NOAA, NCDC, NASA/GISS, and NSIDC data. I support the right of any person to advocate in the strongest possible manner for issues in which they believe. However, when there is the potential for conflict of interest then it is incumbent upon such persons to address it - either by ceasing the advocacy or choosing a professional setting that eliminates the potential for conflict on interest. That applies equally to Bush appointees who pressured for politically preferred outcomes in the EPA and BLM or current NOAA and GISS employees who advocate positions regarding climate change. If data collection is compromised, then we lose the liberal tradition - regardless of whether or not the outcome is what we desire.
Bloggers on Daily Kos repeatedly skewer those who say that global temperatures have fallen since 1998 - arguing, rightly, that if one looks at the long-term temperature trend, the steady increase in global temperatures over the past century is obvious.
Chart by Joe d'Aleo Suggesting Global Cooling
http://icecap.us/...
The short-term downtick is easily subsumed when the long-term temperature trend is presented:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/...
So then, if such sleight-of-hand tricks are inappropriate when used by those arguing against global warming, why are they acceptable in NOAA's recently-released Global Climate Change Impacts? http://downloads.globalchange.gov/... (Warming - Huge PDF File)
Here is the graph used to show a downward trend in Great Lakes ice over the past 40 years. Of course, anyone living through the late 1970s and early 1980s remembers those years as exceptionally cold. Just as those who argue against global warming have cherry-picked 1998 for their short-term temperature line, NOAA scientists have selected an artificial point in order to shown a downward trend. Then they proceed to argue that the questionable "trend" will proceed in a linear fashion into the future.
From Global Climate Change Impacts - Public Domain
Actually, there is more than a century of NOAA data on Great Lakes ice. If one were to pick 1930 as the starting date, the fitted line would show an increase in Great Lakes ice over time. A dispassionate analysis would suggest that the Great Lakes have had a median ice cover of approximately 55%, but this has take place within three sub periods where ice ranged from 45% in warmer periods to 65% in cooler periods.
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/...
Not only is it bad science when professionals do this for any reason - for or against climate change - but it also causes harm to the liberal tradition of research and open critique. It reinforces in the popular culture the idea of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" and only gives ammunition to those who wish to undermine the scientific method.
<<<>>>
The temperature predictions of the Global Climate Change Impacts report are also subject to debate. A pre-release statement in the Guardian included the following:
Over the last 30 years winters have grown shorter and milder, with a 2.1C (7F) rise in winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains.
The original article has since been edited, but the original is available here:
http://www.grist.org/...
Although the writer of the article could have made the mistake in converting Celsius to Fahrenheit, it is doubtful that she missed the overall argument of the NOAA press release. In the main report, as well, the argument is advanced that Midwestern winters have warmed, albeit without a specific number which avoids any miscalculation of Fahrenheit.
In a press conference on Tuesday, University of Illinois Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Don Wuebbles, a contributor to the report, outlined the current and predicted effects of climate change in the Midwest U.S. Average temperatures have risen in the Midwest in recent decades, Wuebbles said, especially in winter.
http://news.illinois.edu/...
But have they? Certainly not 2.1C (3.8F).
First there is the question of baseline. Why did NOAA use the period 1961 to 1979. That is a rather strange interval. Climate norms are usually based upon thirty-year periods of record. Regional climate centers have climate normals for thousands of locations in the United States for the periods 1961 to 1990 and 1971 to 2000. Why 1961 to 1979? It was, by chance, one of the colder periods in the past half-century.
NOAA data in map form is available for winter temperature anomalies for years since 2000. Although the maps do not indicate the baseline, it is likely to be either 1961 to 1990 or 1971 to 2000 rather than a random nineteen-year interval.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/...
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/...
It appears that when compared to thirty-year NOAA normals, much of the Midwest has seen little temperature gains in the winters of 2001 to 2009. 2001 was average, 2002 was warmer than normal, 2003 was cooler than normal. The next four winters were all warmer than normal - 2004 was slightly warmer, 2005 was moderately warmer, 2006 was considerably warmer, 2007 was moderately warmer. But the winters of both 2008 and 2009 were colder than normal. Thus, for the past nine winters in the Midwest one winter had average temperatures, three winters had colder than average temperatures, and five winters had warmer than average temperatures.
<<<>>>
And then there are the temperatures themselves. By chance, I happened to look at the warm bands in the map for the winter of 2009 and knew something was amiss. Jackson, Wyoming - in the center of the warm pool in western Wyoming had a very cold winter. Then I checked Tonopah, Nevada. Then I checked Leadville, Colorado.
Jackson, Wyoming
January –
Average Temp: 15.3
Dptr fm Normal: -1.3
February –
Average Temp: 16.6
Dptr fm Normal: -4.2
March –
Average Temp: 25.0
Dptr fm Normal: -5.1
Tonopah, Nevada
January –
Average Temp: 36.6
Dptr fm Normal: +4.6
February –
Average Temp: 36.1
Dptr fm Normal: -1.1
March –
Average Temp: 40.6
Dptr fm Normal: -2.0
Leadville, Colorado
January –
Average Temp: 16.8
Dptr fm Normal: +2.0
February –
Average Temp: 19.1
Dptr fm Normal: -0.3
March –
Average Temp: 24.7
Dptr fm Normal: +0.3
http://www.weather.gov/...
http://www.weather.gov/...
http://www.weather.gov/...
Guess what?
Not only did Jackson NOT have warmer than average winter temperatures - it was actually 3.5 degrees COLDER than average, as I had thought. That is an 8.5 degree error - not to mention all the false interpolations on that map that such an error would create. Tonopah was nowhere near 3 to 4 degrees warmer, it was only .5 degrees warmer than average. Similarly, Leadville was only about 3/4s of a degree warmer than average, not 5 degrees.
Is it an error in data? In data input? Or in the algorithm?
And if the data was "adjusted" by an average of 8.5 degrees after the fact -
then there's a lot of explaining to do. It is impossible to tell.
<<<>>>
Something is rather fishy in the state of Wyoming - and a lot of other places, too. During the past year, two major data errors occurred at NASA/GISS and NSIDC. The former case is well known. Russian data from Siberia and other regions for October 2008 was identical to the September numbers. Rather than trip an immediate alarm in a skeptical scientist, James Hansen initially stated that October 2008 was the warmest October in history. The error was caught by bloggers. Is it possible that Hansen was unable to see these errors because he views anyone who criticizes him as a court jester in service to the energy corporations?
Revised NASA/GISS map
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/...
Similarly, in February 2009, the NSIDC satellite data showed a massive loss of sea ice in the Arctic - including about a quarter of Hudson Bay. A quick call to Environment Canada confirmed that, indeed, Hudson Bay was not melting in February. Again, it took bloggers to catch this obvious error and NSIDC announced that there had been a satellite failure. Does the fact that new NSIDC director Mark Serreze believes that Arctic ice is in a death spiral have anything to do with the inability of the agency professionals to catch this failure?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...
<<<>>>
I am tired of the egregious errors.
I am tired of being told that discussion is over.
I am tired of being told that I am like a Holocaust denier.
If we are to retool our entire economy, divert resources from other urgent needs, and add significant energy costs - especially for the poor and working poor - - then I expect better science.
I do not share the political philosophy of many of those who have websites critical of climate change policy. Yet, I am dismayed by the repeated errors in data which, de facto, call into question analyses and models based on that data. I will not make the Machiavellian bargain - even if it means that those whom I support win the political battle. I may be rather old-fashioned, but I believe that any policy that is based upon stretched evidence - even if the core issues and intent are good - is doomed to failure.
Not to mention wrong.