Our friends at NCDC have done some pretty spectacular work to hide Addison, New York’s warm past. Thermometers tell us that Addison January afternoons were about three degrees warmer in the past than they are now, and that January 1932 was about four degrees warmer than January 2006. But through the magic of data tampering, NCDC has made the January cooling disappear, and made 2006 almost as warm as 1932.
In order to make the warm January of 1932 disappear, they knocked more than four degrees off of the measured temperature.
If we look at the actual daily temperatures in 1932 and 2006, we can see that January 1932 was indeed an incredibly warm month, with temperatures reaching over 70 degrees on two days.
Afternoon temperatures in 1932 were as much as 35 degrees warmer than 2006.
The New York Times reported the warmest January day on record in 1932 at New York City.
We see the same pattern at thousands of stations. The past cooled and the present warmed. The public is being misled about global warming by a small group of individuals at NCDC and NASA. This is straight out of Orwell.
Speaking of mind blowing data tampering….
Thank you Steven for having the talent and the courage to identify and report official deceit that ultimately threatens the lives of all Earth’s inhabitants.
The AGW debate is over, but puppet scientists are still getting paid to lie to the public.
They say, the bigger the AGW lie, the more believable it becomes “but” there is a point where reality bites back and the bubble bursts ; that time is not far away…
Steven Goddard is the one blogger with the analytical mind, courage and communications skills to “break the bubble of consensus babble.”
Thanks, Steven aka Tony Heller!
Steve, can you do me a favour.
Last year I was looking at NCDC Raw and Final data and all the Estimated values.
Unfortunately I deleted the files, can you tell me where I can get them again?
The current NCDC data from here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/confirmation
does not seem to have any “E” flags.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
Thanks
Steve what do you read them with?
AC, here are some options:
http://www.gzip.org/#faq4
Thanks Colorado, I have JZip, that works fine, I had just forgotten how to get in to them.
If you are using linux, gunzip will get the job done. For example ….
gunzip ushcn.tmin.latest.raw.tar.gz
will produce a ushcn.tmin.latest.raw.tar file
Then you can use ‘tar’ to extract individual files.
tar -xvf ushcn.tmin.latest.raw.tar
will extract roughly 1200 some text files.
If you are stuck on a windows box, then I strongly suggest that you download Cygwin and do all these steps in a command window from Cygwin. Visit Cygwin.com. Cygin is basically a way of running unix/linux programs on a WIndows box.
The result of these steps are a multitude of plain text files which can be analyzed and manipulated in a number of ways. Another fine program to then use is gawk or awk. (Its name is based on its creators, Aho, Weinberger and Kernighan) Awk is great for coming up with software to deal with text files and do things limited only by your imagination and computing platform.
Linux, gunzip, tar, Cygwin, awk, gawk, are all free and open source software.
I always use 7zip, it opens most files and is open source, thus comes with no additions or licence limits. It also has a great command line facility, for those like me who do scripting. You may download it here: http://www.7-zip.org/
From the Read Me file at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
“The composition of the network remains unchanged at 1218 stations, but the
data formats and reprocessing frequency have changed. USHCN version 2.5 is now
produced using the same processing system used for GHCN-Monthly version 3.
This reprocessing consists of a construction process that assembles the USHCN
version 2.5 monthly data in a specific source priority order (one that favors
monthly data calculated directly from the latest version of GHCN-Daily), quality
controls the data, identifies inhomogeneities and performs adjustments where
possible.”
Shouldn’t adjustments be made only where NECESSARY?
Except the inhomogeneities are an integral part of the weather!
Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918
So like Zeke of BEST, ‘jumps in the data’ is identified as an inhomogeneities yet Milham says these ‘jumps of even two or three degrees occur’ naturally.
Or to put it more succinctly “inhomogeneities” = WEATHER.
Steve, can you also remind me of what the TOBS column actually signifies in the current NCDC downloads, are they saying it definitley was the temperature at the TOB or are they saying that is what they think it should be?
As I am having trouble rationalising the values.
Should read “after TOBS data tampering”
“Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever,” says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches. And I think he’s right not to do so. If – as Booker, myself, and few others suspect – the guardians of the world’s land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate “global warming” then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/09/global-warming-so-dishonest-it-makes-enron-look-like-a-paragon-of-integrity/
Two falsehoods, one for each of the foundations of solar and nuclear physics, are the basis for the biggest and longest-lived science scandal ever.
These falsehoods were identified for the Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee in 2013:
Why did our government deceive us? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
Four degrees?! Why not five, or ten?
I ran an alarmist off a Forbes thread yesterday when I started showing these gross acts of data tampering. When it was tenths of a degree, they would just wave their hands and claim that historic temperature data needs adjustments, but now their hand jobs just aren’t doing it for them anymore.
The Christopher Brooker piece in the UK Daily Telegraph on data tampering has attracted well over 16,000 comments , so the message Steve has been hammering over the past few years is getting out there.
+10
A little off topic but you mention Orwell…
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/8/8001687/samsungs-smart-tv-privacy-policy-george-orwell
So that probably also goes for your Smart Phone.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/04/the_end_of_typing_speech_recognition_technology_is_getting_better_and_better.html
Looks like they used the “it can’t possibly have been that hot” algorithm to adjust 1932
From the post: “In order to make the warm January of 1932 disappear, they knocked more than four degrees off of the measured temperature.”
It simply makes no sense to make such drastic adjustments cooling the past. I do not care how lame and ignorant MSM is, they are purposely ignoring this fraud. It has gone way, way too far. Somehow this has to see the light of day.
SG, I have repeatedly asked you to comment on the coincidence of USCRN and USCHN in this link.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2014&month=12
Is USHCN actually ACCURATE ?
Please make a reply.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog.