NASA Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures

In order to hide America’s hot past, NASA has knocked 0.7ºC off 1934 temperatures relative to 1998. Graph shows their 1998 version in red, and current version in blue – normalized to 1998.

ScreenHunter_111 Dec. 13 06.56

About stevengoddard

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

12 Responses to NASA Hiding The Decline In US Temperatures

  1. Andy DC says:

    Does NOAA ever offer any rational explanation for the data manipulation? If so, what is it? Or is it just blantant cheating?

  2. B. Smith says:

    More like blatant fraud.

  3. jaydi says:

    just like they hid the truth about the phony moon landings.

  4. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Climate Change Scam Piggies get your noses out of public trough Egyptian capital sees snowfall 1st first time in 112 YRS.

  5. omanuel says:

    Climategate was but the tip of a giant iceberg of government deception, started in 1945 with the noble goal of saving the world from possible nuclear annihilation.

    I am convinced of these conclusions: “Homo Sapiens will hang together, and share information honestly, or risk sudden – but unexpected – death from natural causes. We have fortunately survived the last sixty-eight (2013 – 1945 = 68 yrs) years, . . .”

    Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

  6. Phil Jones says:

    Yes… Alter the data and NOBODY will ever know!!! Blah ha ha ha… Who ain’t gonna believe NASA?? … We are getting relagated to conspiratorialists thanks to this bold outright revisionist lie…

    • omanuel says:

      Yes, Phil. That tactic has worked for the past sixty-eight years, since leaders of the scientific community joined forces with world leaders in 1945 to

      1. Form the United Nations on 24 October 1945
      2. Hide neutron-repulsion in cores of atoms & stars

      Chapter 1 of my autobiography described the start of my 53 year trek to the core of the Sun on meeting Professor Kuroda in May 1960.

      Click to access Chapter_1.pdf

      Chapter 2 used precise experimental data to provide clear and unequivocal evidence:

      a.) Neutron-repulsion is the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms and stars
      b.) The Sun made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives
      c.) Iron-56 is the most abundant and most stable atom in the Sun and the Earth

      Chapter 2 compares solar and nuclear science before and after the Second World War:

      1. Astronomers and astrophysicists believed the interior of the Sun was mostly iron (Fe) before the end of the Second World War, but after the Second World War ended they unanimously changed their opinions without discussion or debate in 1946 to conclude the Sun’s interior is mostly hydrogen (H)

      2. Scientific textbooks used F. W. Aston’s rigorously valid “nuclear packing fraction” to indicate nuclear stability before the end of the Second World War, but after the Second World War ended most textbooks replaced Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” with C. F. von Weizsäcker’s deceptively convincing “nuclear binding energy.” The latter obscures neutron-repulsion with high values for the binding energy of neutron-rich atoms and low values for the binding energy of proton-rich atoms.

      Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

  7. Daniel LaLiberte says:

    In case anyone is seriously interested in finding out what NASA says:

    Which starts out: “A recent correction of a NASA data set of yearly average U.S. surface temperatures has been misconstrued in the media. NASA’s error applied only to U.S. land surface temperatures, not global temperatures. When discussing climate change, it is the global temperature that matters. The error did not change the fact that 1998 remains the warmest year on record globally. In fact, no annual global temperature rankings changed. Moreover, focusing on individual years has little relevance to climate change, as climate is defined by average conditions over several years.”

    • NASA’s published temperature record has nothing to do with reality

    • gator69 says:

      “Take this test yourself to see how bad a shape the global data base is. Look for yourself following these directions using the window into the NOAA GHCN data provided by NASA GISS here.
      Point to any location on the world map. You will see a list of stations and approximate populations. Locations with less than 10,000 are assumed to be rural (even though Oke has shown that even a town of 1,000 can have an urban warming of 2.2C).
      You will see that the stations have a highly variable range of years with data.
      Try and find a few stations with data that extends to 2009. To=2 0see how complete the data set is for that station, click in the bottom left of the graph Download monthly data as text.
      For many, many stations, you will see the data set in a monthly tabular form has many missing data months mostly after 1990 (designated by 999.9).

      This required the data centers to estimate data for the grid box for that location with other stations nearby (homogenization). In the 2008 plot above only 1079 stations were used. NASA went to locations within 250 km (155 miles) to find data for the grid boxes. For grid boxes without stations within 250 km, they are left blank, thus the large gaps.
      Most of the stations that dropped out were rural. More of the missing data points are having their missing months filled in with more urban data in the grid boxes.”

      Click to access How_Bad_is_the_Global_Data.pdf

      No need to adjust for UHI or station removal. I mean, weren’t all runways paved by the 1930’s? 😆

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s