Guest essay by Larry Hamlin (originally Published at WattsUpWithThat)
In the most recent L A Times article hyping “the hottest October on record” the Times can’t seem to get it right in understanding the critical differences between “average temperature anomaly” and “maximum absolute temperature” data.
The Times article references the global average temperature anomaly graphic noted below which shows the October 2023 global value.
NOAA has also released its October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperature anomaly outcome of 1.35 F (shown below – degrees F on the left hand scale) which climate alarmists have ignored and instead erroneously hyped the global wide October average temperature anomaly outcome as representing the maximum absolute temperature that applies to the Contiguous U.S. region.
The U.S. Contiguous average temperature anomaly value is defined using the USCRN temperature network of measurement stations that commenced operation in 2005 that are specifically determined to meet siting standards that preclude urban heat island impacts from distorting temperature measurements as occurs on the majority of USHCN temperature stations.
The NOAA October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperature anomaly value is only the 7th highest average anomaly value measured with prior year measurements for years 2016 (3.44 F), 2015 (2.72 F), 2021(2.29 F), 2014 (2.23 F), 2007 (1.85 F) and 2010 (1.46 F) all exceeding the October 2023 measured average temperature anomaly result.
The L A Times article shown below once again misunderstands and misuses (as discussed in a prior WUWT article found here) the critical difference (yet again) between average temperature anomaly data and absolute maximum temperature data by erroneously claiming that the October 2023 average temperature anomaly represents the “the hottest October on record” (note the Times articles photo caption) without understanding that such claims can only be determined by use of absolute maximum temperature data versus average temperature anomaly data.
Average temperature anomaly data represents a measure of the statistical difference between a specific month’s average temperature and the long-term average temperature of that same months’ prior measurements over a defined period of years.
Average temperature anomaly data does not represent maximum absolute temperature values with these latter measurements being required to support claims of “the hottest October on record” as hyped by climate alarmists.
The global wide average temperature anomaly data represent the combined average of hugely varying global regional average temperature anomaly values that cover the entire earth’s surface with about 70% of that surface being over the world’s oceans and about 30% being over the far-flung continents which are separated by tens of thousands of miles.
The land area of the contiguous U.S. region represents less than 1.9 % of the earth’s surface and lies between a specific and defined region of latitude (about 25.84 degrees N to 49.38 degrees N) and longitude (about 66.96 degrees W to 124.67 degrees W) in the northern hemisphere.
Attempting to utilize a global wide average temperature anomaly value to determine what absolute maximum temperature outcomes occurred in various defined regional global areas is absurd and invalid.
If the L A Times wants to address “the hottest October on record” it needs to use absolute maximum temperature data records instead of average temperature anomaly data.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. October maximum temperature data for the period 1895 to 2023 (shown below ) clearly establishes that October 2023 was only the 94th highest October maximum temperature out of 129 recorded maximum temperatures with the highest ever measured October valueoccurring in 1963.
Looking at NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data for all months between 1895 and 2023, as shown below, establishes that the October 2023 maximum temperature was only the 867th maximum temperature month out of 1546 recorded maximum temperature months.
If the L A Times wants to make claims of “the hottest month on record” then it must use absolute maximum temperature data to do so and stop erroneously using invalid global average temperature anomaly data to falsely support its flawed “the hottest month on record” claims.
LA Times wants to dramatize every climate crisis with data that supports their false narrative! They don’t expect the average reader to know the difference between any data set being misread, just the outcome that matters! The more dramatic the better! There is absolutely nothing that they wouldn’t do to fix the data to suit their needs! Just like the NYT stating falsehoods to serve their needs! Newspapers are unscientific sources and are just out to sell newspapers and don’t care if they have to distort the facts as they have no credibility standards to meet!