Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999

The data was originally on the GISS web site at the URL below, but has since been deleted. I can’t imagine why.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt

www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

So what about since 1999? Temperatures have also cooled in the 12 years since Hansen corrupted the US temperature record.

CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary

Bottom line is that the US has been cooling for 80 years, and Hansen et al have completely corrupted the data set.

Hansen’s 1999 version of US temperatures
Hansen’s current version of US temperatures

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Hansen et al’s corruption of the historic temperature data falls under the “Big Lie” method of government. It is a lie so big, so enormous in all its implications that people refuse to think it possible. I have spoken with CAGW proponents and told them that the data has been corrupted. Their first response is “How can you believe that?! That is crazy! Why do you deny the science?!” When I offer to send them charts and articles to support the idea of data corruption, they refuse — literally refuse to look at it. “No, I don’t want to see it. Don’t even bother!”

    • LLAP says:

      Of course they don’t want to see it … it would force them to confront their deeply held convictions and – God forbid – possibly have to change them.

    • Mia Nony says:

      WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF SUNLIGHT IN 4 BILLION YEARS:

      SINCE SUNLIGHT IS THEREFORE A SCARCE COMMODITY, HENCEFORTH SUN BATHING IS FORBIDDEN.

      It is a good idea to never discuss religion or politics. CAGW embodies both.
      Agenda 21 is lifted directly from the USSR pure air and water legislation.

      Sin: (ordinary humanity itself is born in non sustainable sin, & only those overseeing the elimination of most of humanity & a return to feudalism are self anointed saviours worthy enough to plunder the world’s global resources for their own personal use);

      Crucifixion (of the planet, not by corporate greed but by those who are its target), followed by Resurrection (of the planet) by carbon offsets, carbon currency, global governance, & serfdom for a pared down population.

      Redemption (eugenics, sterilization, euthanasia, & depopulation are the sinner’s moral duty);

      ENVIRONMENTAL MARXISM

      Google images for the Agenda 21 map.
      Zoom in on the human occupation zones, narrow corridors. These are Kissinger’s & Brundtland’s “stack-&-pack” serf housing zones for a pared down populace of slave labourers.

      Then check out the 1977 USSR documentation link below: Agenda 21 is a direct knock off of communism legislature.
      The USSR appears to have drafted similar laws to ‘protect purity of air and water’ (government orchestrated theft of private property and ALL land, in other words):

      “The U.S.S.R. Constitution did that too.
      Chapter 2, which promulgates the importance of common property to improve “purity of air and water”, “plant and animal kingdoms”, and “improve the human environment”, is ironically entitled
      “The Economic System.”

      Even the Soviets openly admitted that their “environmental concerns” were purely means to an end to generate state wealth after taking over
      private land.”

      See here: http://www.constitution.org/cons/ussr77.txt
      and scroll down to “Chapter 2: THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM”
      Compare this Soviet doc/law with the one within Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development.
      For another article?
      From the doc:
      Chapter 2: THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM
      Article 10. The foundation of the economic system of the USSR is socialist ownership of the means of production in the form of state property
      (belonging to all the people), and collective farm-and-co-operative property.
      Socialist ownership also embraces the property of trade unions and other public organisations which they require to carry out their purposes under
      these rules.
      The state protects socialist property and provides conditions for its growth.
      No one has the right to use socialist property for person gain or other selfish ends.

      Article 11. State property, i. e. the common property of the Soviet people, is the principal form of socialist property.
      The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state. The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and
      other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.
      Sound familiar? Welcome to watermelon global governance, a green wash thin skin, but only on the outside.

  2. rum says:

    so just curious then as to why the glaciers have receded in a lot of areas? Now believe me, thanks to wonderful sites like this one and wuwt etc I am a true denier but I know the first question I will be asked is the one I propose above….just looking for a response so I can continue to convince people to at least look at our arguments tia, rum

  3. bkindseth says:

    Hi Steve,
    How do you do the blinky thing on the US temperature plot? I have ofter thought that it would be fun to make up a worksheet for high school science that would give instructions on how to access temperature data for their closest station and plot and compare the actual vs adjusted temperatures. Instructions could also be given on how to access surface stations.org. In addition they could try to find justifications, such as station history, for any adjustments to the temperature records.

  4. CB says:

    Rum, Glaciers have been receding rapidly since 1700-1750 at the end of the Little Ice Age. They do fluctuate with rising and falling global temperatures.
    See Wikipedia: Alaska’s Glacier Bay National Park.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    If this is correct and can be verified, perhaps in an open court…why has nobody taken private action against Nasa / Giss and / or Hansen?

    It defies creduility that such corruption (can there be any other word?) has escaped the attention of either the authorities or wealthy donors who want to reveal the extent of this fraud.

    Someone, simply put Hansen on the stand in a private lawsuit and compel him to answer for his actions.

  6. Jerrymat says:

    OK, I’m confused by the opening graph. The red line represents what? An average? A running average? Something else? It clearly cannot be the average of the data points show. There is a spot in the 60s with no data points above the red line at all! Don’t be like the warmers – give full information please!

  7. Andy DC says:

    So you are saying there has been no warming during the last 82 years? In the meantime, how much taxpayer tax money has been squandered on the scam? Time for criminal and civil prosecution on a massive scale!!

  8. Skiphil says:

    “Hansen et al have completed corrupted the data set”

    typo alert, I assume you mean “completely”

    Fascinating and important post, will post on Bishop Hill, thanks!!

  9. butcherboy says:

    Go to the NCDC link (your own hyper-link above) and chart the data from 1932 to 2012 (80 years) and you will see a WARMING trend. So is that data raw data or not? If it is the raw data – I assume it is because you used it yourself to show the US data cooling trend between 1999 and 2011 – then what you are saying Steven Goddard (“Bottom line is that the US has been cooling for 80 years, and Hansen et al have completely corrupted the data set”) is simply not true. Why are you lying to your readers? Don’t you think its is time you cleaned up your act and presented the data truthfully? Forbes, via the Heartland Institute, has published your ‘results’. Do they know it is all based on a lie?

  10. butcherboy says:

    I expect my comment to be published, thank you.

  11. butcherboy says:

    If you believe it is “corrupted data” then why are you using that very same data above, to prove your very own cherry-picked point for 1999 – 2011?

    I also charted the John Daly data from the hyper-link above (www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006) and even that shows a warming trend not a cooling trend.

    Where did you get the data for the first chart above? I tried the link but I got a HTTP 404 error (page not found). Aside from that, do you have any data, raw, corrupted or otherwise that show a cooling trend? Even your flashing chart at the bottom, which I am sure you are very proud of, does not show a cooling trend.

    Let’s say hypothetically there is some merit (I don’t believe there is) to your assertion that temperatures are being adjusted up to hide some sort of ‘cooling trend’ – do you really think that all these very smart scientists colluding together, in a global conspiracy of hitherto unprecedented proportions, think they can fool the likes of other smart people like you, year after year, while the actual and measured temperatures diverge further and further? Do you really think they would be that stupid? The idea is completely unsustainable, let alone outlandish and ridiculous.

    As you have shown, the NCDC is completely up front about the adjustments. If they were trying to fool everyone would they be so open about it? They describe the various reasons behind their adjustments here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

    They all seem very reasonable. Scientific data is not always used in its raw form, it needs to be adjusted for instrument changes, calibration errors, measurement biases and so on. Taking scientific measurements is not always a perfectly precise process. Its very naive to think otherwise.

    Do you really expect anyone, aside from your regular rusted-on followers, to believe your pseudo-scientific trash?

    • Cut the crap. The only data that is available post 2000 is corrupted data. I accurately plotted the John Daly data and it showed a cooling trend since the 1930s. Hansen has deleted the uncorrupted data. Pretty scummy of you to try to score points based on the misbehavior of the people you are defending.

      You are a typical alarmist propagandist trying to raise strawmen at every opportunity. If you believe one of my graphs does not accurately represent the underlying data, let me know. Otherwise quit trying to change the subject.

      Hansen used to show cooling since 1930. Now he shows warming. Do you disagree? Yes or no?

      • butcherboy says:

        I tried to find the data from the link for you first chart above and as I said I got a HTTP 404 error. Is that data that you are also saying has been deleted by Hansen? Is the data from that chart above available anywhere? Can you please post a link to the data that works, if you have one?

        I am not a regular reader of your site so I am finding some of your points hard to follow, sorry about that. Maybe you could explain yourself better in some of the points above, rather than just posting a link with no explanation of your hypothesis, or perhaps even just state in each case whether you feel the data is corrupted or uncorrupted.

        Part of my confusion lies in the fact that you have made a point above with what you say is corrupted data. If you accept some of it (1999 to 2011) then why don’t you then accept all of it? I don’t understand why anyone would do that? You still haven’t answered that question.

        We all know 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, just choosing 1999 to 2011 is cherry picking. 12 years is not enough to show a clear climate trend. Or perhaps you believe, like some others, that the next cooling phase/ice age is imminent and we are on the cusp of it right now?

        If you are going to start picking and choosing sections from the John Daly data, then I will also point out that there is a clear warming trend from 1970. Overall, from 1880 to 1999, there is also a very clear warming trend.

        Re: ‘corrupted’ John Daly data – do you mean all his data points before 2000 are uncorrupted, or do you mean the entire dataset was corrupted after 2000 and the uncorrupted dataset is now unavailable?

        “Hansen used to show cooling since 1930. Now he shows warming. Do you disagree? Yes or no?” I disagree, even in your so called “corrupted” blinking chart image, there was cooling after 1930. But I do agree the charts look different, there is no denying that. I’m sure even James Hansen would agree they are different.

      • suyts says:

        Oh fer…… Dude, right under the text box is the link you want…. http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

        Yes, it’s been deleted, that’s why you get the 404 error. It was there, now it isn’t.

        Do you have any other data for Steve to use??? I’m certain he would prefer to use unadjusted data. You have the appropriate data set handy?

        The years aren’t “cherry picked”, Daly’s data ended in 1999, Steve should have used 2000 as the start point, some time references to a year and others through a year, but it isn’t difficult to go to the link and put in the parameters yourself. See the difference in the trend? Me neither.

        Your confusion is a bit simplistic, no? Present temps or near present temps have many sources one can check against. Do you have any other thermometer readings from the 30s? Me neither. We’ll have to wait a couple more decades then they can start adjusting them downward. As they do with all their temps.

        And, you’re entirely missing the point of the post. He’s showing you the intentional corruption of data. The trend from 1880 isn’t relevant to that fact, nor is the one from 1970. Natural variations would have points in which one could see warming and others which would show cooling. This isn’t a difficult concept.

        The blink graph shows a clear cooling trend since the 30s on the “before” graphic.

        Butcher, Hansen’s algorithm is well known, these are adjustments after NCDC jacks with them. I can’t find the raw data. You’re having a hard time with this. You don’t want to believe you’ve been had. It’s a natural reaction. But, at some point, I’d ask you to step back and consider these “reasonable” adjustments. Steve is showing only one instance of data corruption.(well two really) He can, and I can show you many more. But, there is something I cannot show you. I cannot find one case where the aggregate adjustments went in a different direction than what we’re seeing here. Not one. They all adjust in a uniform direction. The past gets cooler and as we move closer to the present, the temps get warmer. We’re now doing this with our sea level measurements. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/this-isnt-about-the-climate/

        Now, tell me, what are the odds of random errors being uniformly adjusted always in the same direction? It is beyond implausible. And, it goes well beyond climate implications. A fluid and dynamic history is the destruction of a free society.

        If you want to hang out an learn, that’s fine. If you want to challenge the skeptics, you’re going to have to step up your game a bit.

  12. B.Ann says:

    Steven Goddard: Thanks for all that you do. May you live forever! I, personally, would like to live to see the leaders of the AGW crowd stoned in the streets!! What harm/hurt/destruction they have caused and are causing. The thinking, understanding of basis science, of two generations has totally been corrupted by the schools, the media, etc. P.S. Truly, I am a peaceable person, but these people are evil.

    • butcherboy says:

      B.Ann, AGW proponents are simply accepting the scientific consensus that exists amongst the experts. We just want to leave a habitable world for our children and their children and so on. You think I am “evil” and you want me to be “stoned in the streets”. Yes, that is very “peaceable”, LOL. Sorry to see you have been brain-washed by big coal, big oil and big mining. What you have written is extremely violent in an old testament kind of way. If you are a Christian you should be ashamed of yourself. If you are a Catholic I would suggest you need to proceed to confession immediately.

    • Brian says:

      I don’t think calling for people to be stoned to death is very civil. If you want to call yourself a peaceable person don’t suggest stoning people that you disagree with.

  13. Herbert says:

    Thanks Steven for this interesting post!
    I am always looking for new evidence to prove to AWG proponents how wrong they are.
    There’s one thing I was wondering about – what is the official reason why Hansen et.al. INCREASE recent temperatures? Shouldn’t they actually be adjusted the other way around since some of the thermometers that used to be in rural areas are now in urban settings?

    Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t find a blogroll of other sites with similar topics. I am sure many people finding you blog might find that helpful.

    • They have a set of subjective adjustments they apply, all heavily weighted by global warming confirmation bias. Monte Carlo analysis tells us that the original data should be left alone.

  14. Deevyne says:

    You’re all nuts.. All I’ve seen is the public consume more resources over the past 30 years than any other time in history and produce more CO2 as well. The summers are just plain strange and the winters are warmer than I’ve ever known them to be. Lots more to be said, but it’s not worth arguing over since no one’s gonna listen. This planet is going to heck in a hand bag and all you morons want to do is debate the average temperature… typical…

    • Who are you arguing with? The graph shows that the weather is indeed warmer than 30 years ago, and it is cooler than 80 years ago. 30 years ago was a cold period, which is why alarmists like to cherry pick that as their start time.

  15. Pete says:

    Anomalies are not average temps The global average is taken from many points around the globe. NYC is planning for sea level rise with a contingency for subway flooding. Fire ants are moving north because winters are not as cold. Local ponds in my area have not frozen for skating since I was a kid. Pine Beetles are breeding 2x per year instead of just once, Winter temps are not cold enough to put them into hibernation. You seem to be throwing out any data that doesn’t fit your conception of how things should be. Show me charts of global averages, not just extremes, which mean nothing, except the climate is changing. Which sort of proves the point. Hotter hot & colder colds. If you read the prediction, that is part of it. 1/2 degree can move the breeding ground of pests 100-200 miles north. Look at all the data, not just the chart that supports your beliefs.

  16. David Shaw says:

    I think it’s pretty clear that temperatures increased pre WW2 and post WW2 decreased and then from 1970 increased (if you can believe the contaminated temp record anymore). It seems to be a 60 year cycle. Now you don’t need a wizz stato like me to tell you that if you start fitting inappropriate straight lines to autocorrelated time-series data then the slope will depend on where you start in the cycle. So in 1930 you start from a fairly high point on the cycle and it must therefore go down. In 1970 you start from a low point and it must go up. Nothing remarkable here, walk on.

  17. Bluebottle says:

    Steve, I love the blinky temperature thing too! The blue circles are great! I was just wondering whether you could also put one around the dot for 1827, when my momma was born and one around 2012, when she died, and join them with a red line too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s