NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1)

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.

ScreenHunter_391 Jan. 10 18.18

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(The GISS website is dead – use the link below for an archived version)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.

ScreenHunter_392 Jan. 10 18.27

NASA Fig D.gif (513×438)

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

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

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.

About stevengoddard

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

256 Responses to NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1)

  1. Gail Combs says:

    Steve, I tripped the WordPress censors again with too many links. (Reply to Fred.)

  2. Gail Combs says:

    “…I certainly would respect a well-thought fact-based constructive criticism of the specifics of any of those models, including temperature data. I have no respect for a blanket declaration that modeling to geophysical phenomena is inherently without merit….”

    See critisim of The KRIGGING Game This website has to do with krigging and mining but the statistical method is the same one used for temperature. (That is just one of the articles at the website.)

  3. Gail Combs says:

    “Seems pretty skeptical to me… [Muller]…”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Muller was never a “Climate Skeptic” as his 2003 published comments show.

    December 17, 2003

    “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.” from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

    Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” might have something to do with all of Muller’s publicity shenanigans. – A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are so nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?

    Some Major dailies have “disappeared” the Muller conversion article by the way. I guess too many people had the brains to figure out Muller’s scam.

    Shell Oil’s finger prints are all over the CAGW scam
    David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association His mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

    Starting with Royal Dutch Shell follow the trail:
    The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in the Dutch part of the group, although the size of its stake has long been a source of debate. The Queen of England is also a major stockholder link and Scuttlebutt and more Scuttlebutt.

    Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is the Founding President of World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

    HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996…

    John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001.

    Ruud Lubbers served three terms as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1982 and 1994, thus becoming the longest serving Dutch Prime Minister…. He continued in Parliament as Senior Deputy Leader, and later Parliamentary Leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance. He became President of WWF International on 1 January 2000, but only served for one year as he was appointed United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 2001-2005.

    World Wildlife Fund Presidents – past and present

    Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 => RIT Capital Partners. Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite

    Then we look at the Shell Board of Directors.

    Peter Voser
    Chief Executive Officer
    … a member of the Swiss Federal Auditor Oversight Authority from 2006 to December 2010. In 2011…

    Josef Ackermann
    Non-executive Director
    … He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Zurich Insurance Group Limited and of Zurich Insurance Company Limited, positions he has held since March 2012.

    … he held a variety of positions in corporate banking, foreign exchange/money markets, treasury and investment banking. In 1990, he was appointed to SKA’s Executive Board, on which he served as President between 1993 and 1996. He joined Deutsche Bank’s Management Board in 1996 with responsibility for the investment banking division and, from 2006 and 2002 respectively until May 2012, he was Chairman of the Management Board and of the Group Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank AG. He is a member of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, the Board of Directors of Investor AB and a number of advisory boards. He also has various roles in several foundations and academic institutions….

    Charles O. Holliday
    Non-executive Director
    … He served as Chief Executive Officer of DuPont from 1998 to January 2009, and as Chairman from 1999 to December 2009…. He previously served as Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Chairman of The Business Council, Chairman of Catalyst, Chairman of the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section, and is a founding member of the International Business Council. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and a Director of Deere & Company.

    Gerard Kleisterlee
    Non-executive Director
    …He is Chairman of Vodafone Group plc, a member of the Supervisory Board of Daimler AG, and a Director of Dell Inc.

    Christine Morin-Postel
    Non-executive Director
    …. she was Chief Executive of Société Générale de Belgique, Executive Vice-President and a member of the Executive Committee of Suez S.A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crédisuez S.A. and a Non-executive Director of Pilkington plc, Alcan Inc. and EXOR S.p.A. She is a Non-executive Director of British American Tobacco plc.

    Sir Nigel Sheinwald GCMG
    Non-executive Director
    He was a senior British diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the USA from 2007 to 2012. He joined the Diplomatic Service in 1976 and served in Brussels (twice), Washington and Moscow and in a wide range of policy roles in London. He served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000 to 2003. Prior to his appointment as British Ambassador to the USA, he served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet Office Defence and Overseas Secretariat. He retired from the Diplomatic Service in March 2012….

    Linda G. Stuntz
    Non-executive Director
    She is a founding partner of the law firm of Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., based in Washington, D.C. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation as well as matters relating to government support of technology development and transfer. From 1989 to 1993, she held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Energy, including Deputy Secretary. She played a principal role in the development and enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

    From 1981 to 1987, she was an Associate Minority Counsel and Minority Counsel to the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. She chaired the Electricity Advisory Committee to the U.S. Department of Energy from 2008 to 2009, and was a member of the Board of Directors of Schlumberger Limited from 1993 to 2010. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Raytheon Company. [Raytheon does mostly government contracts G.C.]

    Jeroen van der Veer
    Non-executive Director
    ….He was Vice-Chairman and Senior Independent Director of Unilever (which includes Unilever N.V. and Unilever plc) until May 2011 and is Chairman of the Supervisory Boards of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and of ING Group. He also has various roles in several foundations and charities.

    Gerrit Zalm
    Non-executive Director
    He is Chairman of the Board of Management of ABN AMRO Bank N.V., a position he has held since February 2009. Before joining ABN AMRO, he was the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands from 1994 until 2002, Chairman of the VVD Liberal Party in the Lower House (2002) and Minister of Finance from 2003 until 2007. During 2007 until 2009 he was an adviser to PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007), Chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board (2007-2010), an adviser to Permira (private equity fund) (2007-2008) and Chief Financial Officer of DSB Bank (2008). Prior to 1994, he was head of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and held various positions at the Ministry of Finance and at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. ….

    Rather well connected to governments, NGOs and various banks are they not?

    Then you have Shell Oil funding the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. WIKI A Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil, founder of Roxanna Oil; former President of Arco International” on the Advisory Board of Richard The Liar* Muller’s consulting firm, Muller & Assoc.

    Finally we come to Ged Davis a Shell Oil VP with IPCC connections who was in the Climategate E-mails. See: ClimateGate (1) email 0889554019 The e-mail attachment includes his Sustainable Development (B1) scenario aka UN Agenda 21.
    Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis

    To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:

    …The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”

    No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.

    Scenarios Come to Davos
    A GBN Conversation with Ged Davis

    As one of the masterminds behind the World Economic Forum’s annual Davos gathering, this seasoned Shell scenarist is once again poised to help global business tackle the world’s problems.

    …Ged Davis is one of those rare people who has a mastery of both craft and content. His craft is scenario planning, which he has been practicing nearly since its inception. In 1972, Ged joined Royal Dutch/Shell, where he worked alongside Pierre Wack, the godfather of scenarios, as well as GBN’s own Napier Collyns and Peter Schwartz. He later became the head of scenario planning at Shell, and over the course of his career spearheaded many innovations in the form. At the same time, he developed deep knowledge about energy, climate change, sustainability, and global social problems like the spread of HIV/AIDS. In many ways, Ged epitomizes the wise, socially responsible European business perspective—which is one reason he was recently chosen to head the World Economic Forum’s new Centre for Strategic Insight, the entity now responsible for setting the agenda for the Forum’s prestigious annual gathering in Davos….

    …then I headed a new unit working on new scenario processes and applications. I had started to develop something different from what Shell was doing—namely, techniques that would allow groups of 60 or so people to develop scenarios. I tried these methods out with a project for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development on the future of sustainable development, which turned out to be a surprisingly successful project. The scenarios had considerable impact, largely, I think, because the techniques we developed almost forced ownership. So I got very much involved with the question of how you build scenarios that are owned by larger groups of people with a capacity to act. For me, that was an important step in my own thinking.….
    http://www.weforum.org/pdf/CSI/GBN_Davis_interview.pdf‎

  4. Gail Combs says:

    “…Sorry, I don;t follow the context — dropped when and where?…”
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Quick and dirty.

    The CO2 levels were above 7000ppm due to biological activity and chemical sequestering they have been dropping like a rock since life evolved on this planet. That is why C3 plants (Trees and most crops) are indanger of starvation and C4 plants (grasses) evolved. This is one of the key pieces of evidence that we’re living on a planet with CO2 levels currently at the very bottom of the normal range. A whole new group of plants evolved several million years ago specifically to cope with it. They developed a new method of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthesise at greatly reduced CO2 levels. Just do a Wiki on ‘C4 photosynthesis’. An even more robust adaption called CAM was evolved by plants like cacti.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf
    In general the stomata research totally destroys the ice core data and thereby the entire IPCC assessment reports. The correlation between CO2 and leaf stomata from 1950 to 2000 was studied and the proxy is found to be very robust. Unlike the ice core samples which are 1000 year averages in a single sample the leaf stomata are very date specific.

    Again:
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.

    Second paper
    Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.

    More to the point this illustrates the problem “in the Field”
    Remember although a plant can stay alive at 200 to 250 ppm it can not grow and produce viable seed especially in the temperate zone where growing days are limited.

    WHEAT (C3):

    Carbon dioxide measurements above a wheat crop, 1. Observations of vertical gradients and concentrations

    The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.

    Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source

    Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 – 0.045% (300 – 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 – 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 – 60%. http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html

    Hydroponic Shop

    …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or produce… http://www.thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

  5. Gail Combs says:

    Fred Fighter says:
    I think we can agree that in fact it would be rare for the day’s high or low temperature to occur at exactly the time at which a temperature is routinely recorded….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    GOOD GRIEF!

    Are you not aware that the Six Min -Max thermometer was invented by the Englishman James Six in 1782 and the same basic design is still in use today?

    That is why we here at this site have a hard time swallowing the Tobs ‘Adjustments’ You take ONE reading after dinner, reset the thermometer and you are done for the day.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Shazaam says:
    …..If a climate model is incapable of using historical input to generate a reasonable approximation of known historical output, then how can you possibly contend that said model is accurate enough to predict the future? The short answer is that you cannot…..”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What is interesting is the IPCC ACKNOWLEDGED the fact that they CANNOT model future climate!!!

    The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR (Third Assesment Report, the fifth just came out.)

    …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible..
    IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

    
    Or to put it more bluntly
    “Anybody who forecasts a chaotic system with more than one forcing more than 5 days ahead is either a fool or very courageous.” [Or paid well to lie] ~ Climatologist

    So what does a complex non linear chaotic signature mean?

    Dr Brown of Duke University (Physicist) said:

    I did research on nonlinear dynamics, aka, chaos theory, for nearly twenty years and from my experience, these guys are pikers. I’m amazed that they couldn’t get four, a dozen, or even hundreds of distinct climates out of just a single model by simply twiddling the initial conditions a bit. Even simple iterated maps with three or four dimensions can give you multiple distinct strange attractors. They should be able to do much better with Navier-Stokes and an effectively infinite dimensional system….

    …How about acknowledging that the General Circulation Models are unproven, almost impossibly difficult computations solving coupled Navier-Stokes equations known to have highly nonlinear, chaotic, multivariate solutions on an absurdly coarse spatiotemporal grid with incomplete descriptions of critical physics and an appalling lack of predictive treatment of named climate structures empirically known to have a profound effect on the evolution of the climate? How about letting the leaders of the world known that when four GCMs were applied to a toy problem vastly simpler than the actual Earth (a simple water world) all four converged to completely different climates, climates that had completely distinct temperatures, circulatory structure, and heat flow? How about not first linearizing CO_2-driven expected gain, then introducing a completely unproven nonlinear feedback from water vapor to amplify the un-alarming warming expected by a factor of two to five, in the teeth of a functioning climate that has enormous negative feedback stability and utterly lacks runaway self-amplifying warming solutions from fluctuations in water vapor alone?

    Of course, if they did all of these things and then avoided the problem associated with delivering a message instead of honestly done and presented science, then 90% of the world’s climate science would be working in some other field, Europe would be economically stable instead of on the edge of financial collapse, millions of people who have died in both the first world and third world in the meantime because of energy poverty perpetuated and exacerbated by the entirely artificial inflation of the prices of energy and the imposition of ludicrous restrictions on the emission of carbon dioxide in energy generation processes while simultaneously continuing to oppose the only energy source (nuclear) that is even approximately capable of providing the energy the world needs without generating carbon dioxide, and millions more would not have died of mere starvation caused by the diversion of basic foodstock into inefficient “biofuel” production, raising world food prices beyond the means of the world’s poorest citizens.

    So yeah, they have some explaining to do. But don’t worry guys, I helped you out up above. You could still make it right, maybe even in time to avoid the pitchforks and torches
    rgb March 7, 2014

    In other words they are lying through their teeth and they know it and have known it for YEARS.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Steve my comment: May 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “Seems pretty skeptical to me… [Muller]…”
    got hung up.

  8. Sinvanor says:

    I can’t fathom why ANYONE here (climate change naysayers or otherwise) takes ANY data or information from anyone who has monetary incentive to show or not show proof of global warming. Which I think I’m seeing a LOT of people use here to prove points. If the climate change and IPCC data is faulty, then why isn’t the other one that says the opposite as well? I feel like you’d have to have personal friends who work in all needed areas to actually know what’s going on. Despite that though I wanted to point out a few things.

    Climate change is an over all thing, meaning the best graphs are ones that show the last 100 years or more because it’s a big picture, not small detail.
    Weather can be colder in areas instead of become hotter. An example being polars get warmer, other places get colder.

    I thought strange weather patterns were part of Global warming, the weather doing things or being record highs (or lows) in areas where that temp hadn’t been reached for over 70 years.

    I get that the carbon tax thing is a reason many debate one side or the other, As I’ve said, I don’t trust any paid for or political info because it’s almost always bullshit and scientists from either side should be ashamed for changing or fabricating data to show one cause or the other.

    What I’m really worried about is that so many details are missing from all of this. I’ve seen so many arguments about CO2 levels being higher is better as it warms places up that couldn’t be used before for extra food production (which we wouldn’t need if we didn’t produce like rabbits, not to mention the levels of starvation in the world today are at an all time high in proportion to population)

    This one bugged me the most. That predictions didn’t come true so everything must be wrong. A prediction is a guessing measure as to when something might happen. Just because something didn’t happen yet doesn’t mean it won’t at all when it comes to science. This is a weak argument to me and proves nothing.

    If I got any of my facts or anything else wrong, and you can prove it through scientific data that is not politically or monetarily charged, I’m very open to listen.

    I don’t care about being right, I just want to know the truth. And if something really is happening and humans are the cause, I find it more worth it to take that precaution rather then take a chance. Oh and don’t be rude, call me stupid or anything else. That’s not an argument, it’s the weak mans attempt in debate to be right. I looked at everyone’s comments and there were very few of you who were civil and discussed facts and not bias opinions and insults with each other.
    Calling someone dumb doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

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