NOAA Climate Extremes Fraud – Worse Than It Seems

NOAA claims that 2012 had the largest area of hot temperatures on record in the US, by a wide margin.

ScreenHunter_2050 Aug. 17 15.15

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

2012 wasn’t even close. 1936 and 1934 both had much more extensive 100 degree coverage than 2012, and 1901 did too.

ScreenHunter_2056 Aug. 17 18.57

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

17 Responses to NOAA Climate Extremes Fraud – Worse Than It Seems

  1. Dave N says:

    Here’s the answer:

    “Stations chosen for use in the CEI must have a low percentage of missing data within each year as well as for the entire period of record. Data used were adjusted for inhomogeneities: a priori adjustments included observing time biases (Karl et al. 1986), urban heat island effects (Karl et al. 1988), and the bias introduced by the introduction of the maximum-minimum thermistor and its instrument shelter (Quayle et al. 1991); a posteriori adjustments included station and instrumentation changes (Karl and Williams 1987). In April 2008, maximum and minimum temperature data from the USHCN were replaced by the revised USHCN version 2 dataset. In October 2012, a refined USHCN version 2.5 was released and replaced version 2 data for maximum and minimum temperature indicators.”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/data_used

    I wonder what the criteria for “missing data” is? i.e. do they include the “E” figures, or not?

    • Those are monthly data, and wouldn’t be much use for this exercise. Also, there wasn’t much missing data prior to 1990.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      I wonder what their criteria for “Unusually Hot Summer Temperatures” is. Maybe the definition is the temps only exist in models or the wishes of secret societies..

      • stpaulchuck says:

        that was my immediate reaction, I’d like to see the ruler they used at each time period for “unusually”. I bet a good steak dinner that the ruler was mutable over time.

  2. omanuel says:

    Climategate emails that surfaced in late November 2009 were but the tip of a gigantic iceberg of government deceit – disguised as consensus science by federal research agencies and leading American universities and research institutions after WWI in order to:

    a.) Take totalitarian control of society worldwide;
    b.) Save the world from possible nuclear annihilation; and
    c.) Hide public knowledge of the FORCE that powers the cosmos:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf

  3. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    The truth comes out. How can we believe what we’re told now.

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    According to the UKMET Off extreme events are much more common and their climate model foresee this getting worse. Stupid cow interviewed on BBC. Of course;

  5. emsnews says:

    Just reported today, Britain is going to see FROST this week!

  6. Shanna M says:

    You are taking the scientific approach of using an exact measurement (100 degree), whereas the NOAA is taking a very vague approach of “unusually hot” which could mean many different things. I imagine that there isn’t anyplace where NOAA defines the criteria to be considered “unusually hot,” right?

    For example, a site that hits 100 degrees fairly often would not be counted as “unusually hot” if it hits 102 but a site that is usually 70 degrees could be considered “unusually hot” if it hit 80 degrees. The NOAA data is just plain useless.

    • omanuel says:

      Unfortunately, the scientific approach is totally alien to the current scientific estaishment.

      Our research institutions became rich by finding 99%-consensus “scientific evidence” for anything government leaders wanted them to find.

      • stpaulchuck says:

        ————————-
        “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” – Michael Crichton

        ————————-
        “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton

      • omanuel says:

        Yes, Michael Crichton figured out what was happening long before I recognized the hand of Stalin in post-1945 “science.”

        Sixty-nine years of quiet deceit now seems to be spirling into an ancient crash conclusion:

        “Truth is victorious, never untruth.”

        Secure your spiritual seat belts!

    • stpaulchuck says:

      awww come on Shanna, you got something against the application of the Universal Variable Constant in weather reporting?? Tsk, tsk. [*smirks behind hand*]

  7. CJ says:

    Its from the diurnal minimums being higher due to UHI and being smeared into surrounding areas by the homogenization processes into average the temps; ergo, hotter…NOT@!@!

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