Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture.
“Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit [relative to 1998] this year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,”
“I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.”
Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data | Fox News
Nothing could be further from the truth. As of 1999, NASA showed that 1934 was more than one degree (Fahrenheit) warmer than 1998, and that 1921, 1931 and 1953 were all warmer than 1998.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
(The GISS website is dead – use the link below for an archived version)
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
They now show that 1934 is about 0.1C or 0.2F cooler than 1998. In other words, the total downwards adjustment of 1934 is almost 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit relative to 1998.
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.
NOAA makes bold press releases based on hugely altered data, and makes no mention that the data is altered. Then when called out, they claim that the adjustments are small, when in fact the adjustments are larger than the trend. The 1930s used to be by far the hottest decade, before the data was adjusted.
In engineering, this would be known as a signal to noise ratio of less than 1.0, which would be considered by any legitimate scientist to be almost useless data.
James Hansen of NASA wrote this in 1999.
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
The EPA has also published data showing that the 1930s was by far the hottest decade.
www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/pdfs/print_heat-waves.pdf
Why are NOAA and NASA trying to change the story now? Why don’t they tell us that they are altering the data? Why don’t they tell us that prior to altering the data, thermometers show that 1934 was just as warm as 2012?
Even if they believe that their adjustments are legitimate, it is extremely unethical for them to publish press releases which don’t acknowledge that the thermometer data shows no warming in the US.
More later.
the so and so,s should be in jail and hopefully one day they will be,it,s the same here in Australia,Australia is one of hottest,dryest places on earth at the moment there screaming heat wave! when it,s just a normal summers day unbelievable
Another sceptic has spotted a fiddle made by the UK MET office.
On their revised forecast they transposed their previous forecast with a white line. Yet in the original forecast the trend is shooting up rapidly after 2005. Using the trusty eyeball method, it looks like 0.4C of warming was predicted to have occurred by now. Yet in their revised forecast, the original trend is now shown to be heading in the opposite direction. It’s as if they are claiming that they *predicted* cooling after 2005. Cheating doesn’t get any more blatant than that.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/spot-the-difference/
It’s a crime against science.
Science is like Kryptonite to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They are just another wacky activist group. I’m not offended by progressive butt heads or conservative jerks. What is repulsive however, is their nonsense claim that science informs their politics.
…”the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison” Since when has such a justification been part of the scientific method?
The scientific method -
These liars and their media useful idiots are simply trying to soften up the public to a carbon tax. Here it comes – don’t expect the con and bullsh#t to stop anytime soon.
Another example of government fiddling the data:
http://www.europac.net/media/video_blog/inflation_propaganda_exposed
We normally look at the anomalies each month only.
But did we notice that the new version also adjusted the average US temperatures down in all months by -0.7F average which changes by the season by between -1.0F to -0.4F. Those kind of changes don’t show up so much in the anomalies by themselves.
Generally, much more change must have occurred in this move to version 2.5. (Stations used, weighted average location, identified breakpoints increased etc.).
http://s9.postimage.org/juyx0pjzz/NCDC_Changes_in_US_Conus_Augto_Dec2012.png
I always enjoy these posts, and share them with the masses. Another skeptic just got her wings!
I heard that bell, as well. Thanks for the post.
The climate activists at NCDS and GISS posing as scientists are guilty of scientific fraud. They have continually manipulated the temperature data to deliver a warming signal that fits the politically correct version of human-caused planetary warming. And, of course, NOAA’s just-released news release focuses solely on heavily altered U.S. temperatures while ignoring the rest of the planet, which has not warmed to any statistically significant degree for more than 16 years.
NOAA NCDS and NASA GISS have given science a bad name. Both agencies should be abolished. And the scientists responsible for perpetrating the AGW fraud should be prosecuted.
Surely, OJ was innocent.
With regard to your mention on Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/
I think you, like Fox, should call these ‘adjustments’ ‘revisions’.
I believe ‘revisions’ is a more appropriate word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)
I believe ‘corruption’ is a more appropriate word. Recall that in some cases they have lost the original data, so they are adjusting already adjusted data.
When we are unable to recover the original data, we call it data corruption.
These temperature measurements only cover the 130 years of the instrument era. However the earth is at least 4 to 5 billion years old. Why are the ice core data stretching back tens of thousands of years always omitted from global temperature discussions?. Could it be that ice core temperature data reveals that the earth temperature during most of the last tens of thousands of years has been much higher than today?
i have seen several tv shows that speak about ice core data. i can only assume that they arent lying when they claim that there was less co2 previously and that the industrial era temps have been warming…which is what the shows i have seen stated.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Ah, tthe shifting sands of NASA and MET climate records
is it true that most scientists believe that the earth was much warmer eons ago??
if it is true that the earth has been much warmer eons ago what would be an accurate way to determine if the earth is in an overall all warming trend…if so much temp data is skewed, altered, lied about, or nearly impossible to measure anyway?
Government agencies SHOULD be responsible for presenting data as accurately and truthfully as possible. There should be well-documented standards in place for making adjustments to current and past data sets. These agencies should welcome input from independent, outside entities prior to making these presentations. If this were the case, then there wouldn’t be the need for articles with the word “Fraud” in the headline.
NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands….
headlines are often opinions.
This is no laughing matter the persons responsible for this blatant fraud need to be prosecuted where are the lawyers urgent!
Rich Dimasco suggested I copy my comments here:
I note an obvious attempt at deception when the author here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud-expands-part-1/
compares temperature in the lower 48 states to the world temperature, as if the two were the same.
Also
I would not assume that the absence of explanation by Steve Goddard to be evidence of an absence for a valid explanation on the part of NOAA.
I’ll bet that IF the statement that the historical temperature estimation has changed is true, the explanation is probably something like this:
Few if any temperature records from individual stations (I think these are commonly called ‘scribal records’) are complete. If one were to compute a mean value while simply leaving out the missing data that would almost certainly introduce a bias into the calculate. If one day is missing from one winter, that would probably bias the mean value upwards and vice-versa for summer data.
So it is necessary it interpolate to fill the data gaps. That process will rely not only on the data nearest the gap, but typically also on data for the same day(s) of year as the missing data, but for other years. Thus as new data become available, the calculated global means for past temperatures will change. This is obviously true if scribal records are found that can be used to fill the gaps, but also the case for newly found data from other years.
In addition to new data, old data many be discarded when there are valid reasons for discarding them, or they may be recalibrated if new information about them is discovered.
For example, we know that temperatures at any give location will change gradually over the course of a day. If the scribal records show a day with hour temperatures in the range of 20 to 30 degrees F, but one hour shows a temperature of 80 or -20, that one measurement should be presumed to be wrong and discarded, with an interpolated value substituted.
In addition via personal correspondence with the folks at Real Climate I have been told that other factors that motivate a re-calibration of past data include changes in practice (such as time of day at which temperatures were recorded, called Time of Observation Bias) and changes in equipment.
They indicated that the recent changes were affected by Time of Observation Bias (TOB). I know that re-calibration of past data is a common practice in other Earth Sciences. It does not surprise me at all to see it being done with Climate data. Indeed, refusal to update temperature estimate in the light of new data, simply for the purpose of avoiding criticism from Steve Goddard, would be inappropriate.
I am not affiliated with NOAA, the Real Science website, the Real Climate Website, or others referenced in the article or my comments.
Are you an idiot? This is a discussion of NOAA alterations to the US temperature record. The adjustments are more than three times larger than what NOAA docs say they are.
But you are not affiliated with NOAA, the Real Science website, the Real Climate Website, or others referenced in the article or my comments. So what is this kool aid statement about then. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
In addition via personal correspondence with the folks at Real Climate I have been told that other factors that motivate a re-calibration of past data include changes in practice (such as time of day at which temperatures were recorded, called Time of Observation Bias) and changes in equipment.
“So what is this kool aid statement about then. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!”
I assume your self-described kool aid statement, “BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!” to be a childish insult. But of course, you know better than I.
Yeah!
it is exactly what it means, and what Steven said.
“Are you an idiot?”
No. Are you an ill-mannered out? I would hope not.
“…The adjustments are more than three times larger than what NOAA docs say they are.”
Which docs?
“Which docs?”
The reason why everyone is assuming you’re an idiot is that you’re not even aware of the NOAA documentation on their adjustment regime, much less read it. Yet you feel intelligent enough to educate others on the topic. (sigh)
“The reason why everyone is assuming you’re an idiot is that you’re not even aware of the NOAA documentation on their adjustment regime, much less read it”
Indeed. Aside from the reply received from my reply to a question to the the folks at real Climate, all I know about this webpage is what I have read on this webpage itself. Therefor I do have a deficit in information of an objective scientific nature on this specific topic.
Should you wish to refer me to something helpful, such are there docs to which you refer, I would be most appreciative.
Post something critical @ real climate under a different name and on some computer not addressed to you and you will see.
but I doubt that will work. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Fred,
If you start off by asking fair and reasonable questions then it’s been my experience that Steve will point you in the right direction with the necessary links. But if you kick off the discussion by providing a ‘lecture’ on why us dumb sceptics don’t know what we are talking about, then it’s assumed you’re an advocate for a cause, and as such, a lost cause, so to speak.
Has the article been edited? I no longer see text ‘lower 48′.
I also don’t see any world temperature plots. Perhaps errors in the graphics have been corrected?
Oh, I see. I thought your ‘blink comparator’ was blinking the two graphs on the referenced GISS webpage. I see now that it is not. I apologize for referring to the comparison as a deliberate deception, on the condition that you provide a reference that shows GISS reported the data being blinked.
You are confirming that you are an idiot. The links to both versions of GISS graphs are in the article. Hansen has changed the data. Use your brain. please.
Mr Nitschke,
You have had ample opportunity to direct me to the information you suggest I read. Yet you have thus far declined to do so. This leaves me wondering if you have read it yourself, or if it even exists.
This exercise does serve as a reminder of why I generally avoid reading blogs.
You obviously don’t read blogs. You make stupid posts without bothering to read the article you are posting under.
No wonder luke warmers are against you!
Ah, it appears that the GISS discussion is here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Some of the specifics are reported here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
Hope that helps.
Why you deep-linked to a single figure and did not refer your readers to GISS’ own discussion of recent changes to their temperature estimates is left as an exercise for your readers.
I’ve discussed this endlessly. You show up, read one article and rant like a moron.
So the complaint has moved from accusing Steve of an “obvious attempt at deception” to whining about having trouble spotting the right link. (Buried in all that boring stuff that required actual reading…?)
Actually the ‘correct’ link, the one linking to the discussion by GISS, was not provided.
What one is that yet again?