Visualizing The Big NASA/NOAA Lie

NASA and NOAA will declare 2o15 to be the hottest year ever, because they have been instructed by the White House to do that.

To see how big a lie they are telling, compare April 2015 vs. April 1998

ch_tlt_1998_04_anom_v03_3 ch_tlt_2015_04_anom_v03_3

ScreenHunter_8931 May. 04 07.49

April1998v2015

About stevengoddard

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

42 Responses to Visualizing The Big NASA/NOAA Lie

  1. BallBounces says:

    Do we really have the ability to measure the earth’s temperature accurately?

    • David A says:

      Satellite readings are complicated and can be made to sound very complicated. However the issues are consistent and regularly tested against weather balloons for verification. They are far more accurate then the surface record and the many inconsistencies due to station moves, number of stations, changing of methods, UHI, questionable artic adjustments, poor SST records, etc.

      • darrylb says:

        and a homogenization process which, it seems, has a built in bias.
        There is almost no adjustment for UHI, even though locations have been
        gradually surrounded by various structures.

        I think Tom Karl was an originator of the process, I am not sure if it
        has been peer reviewed, and I am not sure where it is specifically
        laid out, or if it is continually in adjustment.

        Verification by weather balloons, as you indicate is important.
        Noting that Roy Spencer regularly plots the two temp records
        together.

    • Rockstarsisthereanythingtheydontknow says:

      Another good question is: Even if we can say we can get accurate measurements of planetary temperatures now. What does that say about accuracy going back in time? In fact, we can’t say we have any kind of real precision beyond the 20th century going back, and only hope and faith for the last half of the 19th century and only for some parts of the most civilized places. In terms of really knowing historic temperatures, we’re too ignorant to know how ignorant we are. But our noisy climate alarmism community does not have any shortage of confidence in their ability to predict the future in spite of the scarcity of good, accurate data. How old is this planet again? Do we really think we are soooooo much smarter than the global cooling lemmings 40 years ago?

      • Gail Combs says:

        The ClimAstrologists try to make us believe the scientists a hundred years ago were half-brained nit-wits when the opposite seems to be the case. A hundred years ago the scientists were careful honorable men taking painstaking care. Today we have nitwits letting a computer do their thinking for them. They do not rely on the original hand written data to determine station moves or other changes. Instead they use a computer program to ‘detect specific breakpoints’ supposed changes at the station.

        Here is an example: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/163049
        about which Zeke Hausfather wrote “Here is Reading, MA, for example [URL] The station has had three document station moves and two documents TOBs changes in its history, as well as a number of other notable undocumented step changes relative to surrounding stations.

        What is interesting is the data that Berkeley BEST calls “raw’ is not even raw data!
        Zeke says “In the Berkeley approach every attempt is made to use first reports. We avoid the term “raw” data because one can never know that data that purports to be “raw” is in fact “raw.”

        However recovery of truly raw data from Europe by Frank Lansner demonstrated that BEST is not using raw data. Further, the results demonstrated that BEST has a bias for coastal stations, just like GISS. link Coastal stations are influenced by the ocean temperature oscillations while interior stations in the shadow of mountain ranges. Frank explains the difference in trends in the link.
        ……..

        Getting back to the scientists from a hundred years ago, I thought it quite interesting that Willis Isbister Milham was talking about 20 years of hourly data in 1918.

        On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are too conservative.”

        on Page 70
        “The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”

        So obviously there was efforts made to determine both the error of the instruments and the best method for getting a ‘true’ reading.

        Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham (1918)

        ….The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter which is ordinarily placed 6 to 10 feet above the roof of some high building in the city. At a Cooperative station the highest and lowest temperatures during a day are determined, and also the reading of the maximum thermometer just after it has been set. The purpose of taking this observation is to make sure that the maximum thermometer has been set and also to give the real air temperature at the time of observation.

        Continue reading page 77 on.

        If a good continuous thermograph record for at least twenty years is available, the normal hourly temperatures for the various days of the year can be computed….

        “the average temperature for a day is found by averaging the 24 values of hourly temperature observed during that day”

        If the normals are based on twenty years of observations, it will be found that there is not an even transition from day to day, but jumps of even two or three degrees occur….

        Milham also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations ordinarily in the larger cities, 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations.

        A paper in The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891 also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph and shows the care taken to get the best data given the instruments available.

        An Account of the “Leste,” or hot wind of Madeira
        by H. Coupland Taylor, M. D. F. R. Met. Soc.

        Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

        I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

        This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

      • Gail Combs says:

        There are a lot of ‘tricks’ pulled by the ClimAstrologists.

        On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
        The very first one is not showing error bars like this for CO2. The chart was made by Ernest Beck. Note the sudden increase in error during ‘modern times’ and the increase in CO2 during the 1940s warm blip. (ocean outgassing)

        This paper estimate error bands:

        Click to access E___E_algorithm_error_07-Limburg.pdf

        “By knowing this the minimum uncertainty for every annual global mean temperature should be expanded not only to the value described here i.e. with 95 % confidence interval to ± 1.084 °C, but should be at least 3 to 5 times wider. Thus, the average global temperature anomaly for the last 150 years is dissolved in a wide noisy uncertainty band, which is much wider than the whole assumed variation of the 20th century.”

        Other good references:
        http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html

        http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

      • Gail Combs says:

        Not correcting for UHI was not enough to keep up the ‘warming’ needed by the politicians. So another trick pulled was:
        The March of the Thermometers
        Station Drop Out is a BIG cause of data manipulation especially when the stations dropped are rural stations.


        (Note dT is the change in temperature)

        “The GIStemp use of the records in GHCN v2.mean starts in 1880, and many of the stations that commence in the period 1880-1900 are still active until 1989/90, but only four of these survive in the current set for 2009.”

        See my comment for links and a fuller explanation.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Then there is the all purpose excuse:TOBS (time of observation)

        Instructions were written and given out to the US observers in 1882. There were two thermometers, one max and one min.

        For the maximum thermometer they state:
        “…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”
        https://archive.org/stream/instructionsforv00unitrich#page/20/mode/2up

        That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it!

        Zeke Hausfather says:

        …..Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

        All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s
        http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

        Steve addresses the TOBS issue in another manner:
        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=tobs

      • Gail Combs says:

        The biggest lie from Zeke is: For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s…
        First one of the moves was closer to the buildings when they installed the electronic temperature Systems. Less digging and less wire.

        Second the conversion from liquid in glass thermometers to thermistors is the conversion from a slow responding instrument (due to the amount of mass) to a very quick responding system.

        Third the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer (NOT 0.5 C colder) in an actual 8.5 year side-by-side test!

        The last couple of days I posted on an 8.5 year side-by-side test conducted by German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

        Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!

        http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.Es2IbMZo.sAqMRsUB.dpbs

        Trausti Jónsson, a senior climatologist at the Icelandic Met Office, wrote Paul Homewood in 2012, ““The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”. GISS made Reykjavik’s warm 1940 period disappear by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees. Jónsson wrote that he was unaware that NOAA made corrections to Iceland’s historical data, did not agree with them, and refused to modify Iceland’s own historical temperature records. [H/T policycritic comment made January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am]

        Oh and the biggest laugh of all?
        The MMTS sensors used have an accuracy of “generally” +/-0.5°F according to NOAA so like so many of these trends it’s still in the noise… especially if it is based on “average” temperatures. So the new State of the Art MMTS are no better than the thermometers used by Willis Isbister Milham in 1918!!!

        MMTS Specs:
        http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/coop/specs-1.html

    • anthonyvioli says:

      We don’t need too…when water vapour decreases in the atmosphere its cooling. When it increases, its warming.

      Since the late 1930s its been slowly declining through the mid levels.

      By their very own standards AGW if falsified. The earth is doing what it always does, regulates itself through warm and cool spells.

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for using your analytical ability and your communication skills for the benefit of humanity.

    The LIES are far bigger and more connected to tyrannical control of the public and rule-by-deception than any of us wanted to admit.

    • omanuel says:

      Almost every federal agency and innocent school teachers now promote the lies: AGW is the fourth in a series of MAJOR LIES invented after nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) were united on 24 Oct 1945 into an Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science Truths to forbid public knowledge of Neutron Repulsion – the major source of energy in cores of heavy atom, some planets, ordinary stars, galaxies and the universe:

      1. SSM- standard solar model
      2. SNM- standard nuclear model
      3. BBC- Big Bang cosmology model
      4. AGW- anthropologic global warming

      One suggestion for society’s escape from this Seventy-year Old Matrix of Deceit is a series of short papers for the teachers of future generations:

      Click to access Introduction.pdf

      Your comments, corrections or criticisms would be appreciated.

  3. NavarreAggie says:

    I’m probably going to get beaten up for playing devil’s advocate here, but since the graphics above depict temperature anomalies, not actual temperatures, wouldn’t a baseline shift upwards in the average potentially reduce the reported anomalies while the actual temperatures could still be the “hottest ever”? It just seems that absolute temperatures, not anomalies, should be used to make the argument. Admittedly, the baseline shift would have to be dramatic, but the discrepancy would exist nonetheless.

    It is also possible that I’m just too dumb to appreciate all of the nuances in this claim 🙂

  4. NavarreAggie says:

    I just noticed that the satellites do not collect brightness data over the Northern India/Nepal area? Why is that? I can understand missing data at the poles, but does the altitude or ruggedness of the Himalayan area interfere with satellite measurements?

  5. sfx2020 says:

    No, like the polar regions, it’s the snow and ice.

    • sfx2020 says:

      I retract that. Since Greenland is shown, it can’t be the ice. But the north pole certainly isn’t above 14000 feet. Why is it missing?

  6. ren says:

    The total amount of energy received per second at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (TOA) is measured in watts and is given by the solar constant times the cross-sectional area of the Earth. Because the area of a sphere is four times the cross-sectional area of a sphere, the average TOA flux is one quarter of the solar constant, and so is approximately 340 W/m²). Since the absorption varies with location as well as with diurnal, seasonal, and annual variations, numbers quoted are long-term averages, typically averaged from multiple satellite measurements.

    Of the ~340 W/m² of solar radiation received by the Earth, an average of ~77 W/m² is reflected back to space by clouds and the atmosphere, and ~23 W/m² is reflected by the surface albedo, leaving about 240 W/m² of solar energy input to the Earth’s energy budget.
    Past and future of daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude. The green curve is with eccentricity e hypothetically set to 0. The red curve uses the actual (predicted) value of e. Blue dot is current conditions, at 2 ky A.D.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
    Current absorption of solar radiation on the surface is about 237 W / m ^ 2.

  7. ren says:

    It may be a hot summer in the central and eastern US, due to weak El Niño.

  8. ren says:

    The ice in the Arctic is increasing due to the negative change of AMO.
    “The PIOMAS project attempts to measure the “volume” of the arctic sea-ice. This is difficult and has been an elusive piece of data to obtain, and the PIOIMAS project is critisized for various reasons, but likely is our best attempt so far. I find the above graph interesting for it suggests the sea-ice has been thickening the past few years. (The current year is the red line.)

    Of course, “average thickness” is a bit of a ridiculous concept, as the thickness of the ice varies greatly. The Laptev Sea, which exports a lot of ice due to winds howling off shore from Siberia, can have open water when it is -40°, and often has only a skim of ice less than a foot thick which will melt easily in the summer sunshine, but all that exported sea-ice tends to be carried by cross-polar flow and crunch up against the north coast of Canada, where the ice can be twenty feet thick.”

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/category/arctic-sea-ice/

  9. ren says:

    “April 24, 2015 — I believe in one of my first blog posts I mentioned that we were working in an area of high accumulation (snowfall) on the Greenland Ice Sheet. I would like to change that to an area of VERY HIGH accumulation! Actually Southeast Greenland does receive the largest amount of snowfall on the entire ice sheet. In previous years we have experienced storms dumping over a meter of snow. This year we had one of those storms bringing well over a meter of snow and then 3 hours after the first storm ended we got a second, bigger storm, pushing our 5 days snow total to nearly 3 meters of snow.
    The amount of snow is best summed up by a dinner conversation in our cook tent where Olivia, being on the ice sheet for the first time, asked Clem, Josh and I, ice sheet veterans, what the biggest storm we had ever been in was like. We all responded, in unison,” this is the biggest storm we have ever been in!” While the weather was not particularly cold or windy, it just kept snowing. The low wind made it possible for us to continue science measurements through the storm in a special tent, with no floor, providing both shelter and access to the snow.”
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/2015/04/25/wow-that-was-a-lot-of-snow/

  10. JeffK says:

    It occurred to me that John Cook is not a scientist. He’s a “communications” PR mouthpiece and psychology brainwasher studying Orwell.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Before he got his present climate propaganda position at the University, John Cook in his own words (from his old “About Skeptical Science” page) …

      “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade”
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

      This is the caliber of half-baked swine the CO2-alarmism community have on their side purveying the 97% consensus lie.

      My apologies to swine everywhere for the crass metaphor.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Tom Nelson shows NOAA lowered past global temperature by more than 4F since 1997.
    l

    NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 1997
    The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995 by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit

    NOAA Global Analysis- Annual 2014
    The average temperature for the year [2014] was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F) [ie 58.24F], beating the previous record warmth of 2010 and 2005 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2015/02/noaa-settled-science-earth-at-5824f-in.htm

    62.45 — 58.24 = 4.21°F in 17 years or 0.25°F/year

    So much for our ‘State of the Art’ weather stations.

  12. sfx2020 says:

    The tonmelson blog post is gone

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 )

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