Why NASA And NOAA Made Greenland Disappear

There is plenty of temperature data available from Greenland, but NOAA has made it disappear from their analysis, as has NASA.

201510

They have good reason for this. Temperatures in southwest Greenland are plummeting, and are colder now than during the 1970s. The plot below is made from the NOAA GHCN database – data they pretend they don’t have.

2015-11-13-04-54-27

The amount of ice in Baffin Bay has sharply increased since 2010, and is now fully recovered to 1979 levels.

region.all.anom.region.4

University of Illinois – Cryosphere Today 

 Green below shows ice expansion since this week in 2010.

2015-11-21-04-07-39

N_daily_extent.11232010 N_daily_extent

I took these pictures of Baffin Bay in late June. There was still huge amounts of ice.

ScreenHunter_9591 Jun. 21 07.08

ScreenHunter_9593 Jun. 21 07.09

Satellite data shows that 2010 was much warmer that 2015 globally. Satellite data covers almost all of the planet, so it doesn’t produce the gross errors which NASA and NOAA do with their surface data.

2015-11-21-04-25-39

Greenland has gone missing, because it wrecks the NOAA/NASA climate scam.

About stevengoddard

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

126 Responses to Why NASA And NOAA Made Greenland Disappear

  1. rah says:

    And why would one not suspect that this just an example of what is their standard operating procedure these days. Any location with anonymously cold temps that would ruin their on going hottest ever theme must be altered or failing that omitted from the database.

    And people wonder why or even defend the fact that NOAA has defied congress and the law by refusing to hand over their internal communications as if their workers have some kind of executive privilege?

    Still I won’t hold my breath that they will comply with the law so the tax payers who fund them can find out the truth about that agencies internal activities. Based on the recent record there is absolutely no reason to believe any agency or department of this administration will follow the law and that this congress has the will, desire, or ability to make them do so.

    • Andy DC says:

      I now just automatically assume that if NOAA or NASA says it, it must be a lie. I know people that have worked for both agencies and with minimal prompting, they have told me that those agencies are highly politicized and rotten to the core.

      • rah says:

        I think there are some darn good dedicated people working there but the bosses and and a significant element are totally politically controlled. They don’t have to destroy or eliminate the good ones. They can just move them to other jobs so they can’t interfere with the fraud.

      • gator69 says:

        My brother works at NASA, and he has also said that the political pressures are ridiculous and scandalous, forcing him to appear before congress on more than one occasion.

      • QV says:

        The problem is, the general public, and the media, assume it is the Gospel truth.

  2. The sooner this congressional hearing starts asking questions like this, the sooner those scoundrels fabricating these “temperatures” will be booted out.

  3. QV says:

    What’s the betting that they rediscover these data, after the Paris conference?

  4. sfx2020 says:

    Where can one find that land only graphic? It’s not in the October report
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201510

  5. Robertv says:

    You can’t compare 11-03 with 11-19.

  6. Steve Case says:

    I do love what you do. I found this after an extremely short search:

    Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net)

    As of the 1999 field season, 18 automatic weather stations (AWS) are collecting climate information on Greenland’s ice sheet. Each AWS is equipped with a number of instruments to sample the following: …
    http://cires1.colorado.edu/steffen/gcnet/

    But as I’ve posting, I don’t expect to read about it in the “Mainstream” press.

  7. Steve Case says:

    After a longer search I found the ncdc.noaa.gov image

  8. QV says:

    What I don’t understand is, there’s no data for Greenland on the land only map, but there is on the land & ocean map.
    Does that mean the land & ocean map data (for land) is based on ocean data?
    I can’t find a link to the ocean only map.

    • Steve Case says:

      There’s lots of data that isn’t readily available. Besides the ocean map, columnar or table data of sea surface temperatures published now and then, say ten years ago, would be nice.

  9. sfx2020 says:

    Some previous months and years have a few stations shown, some don’t.


    (just change the date in the url to check)

  10. sfx2020 says:

    Interesting. Dec 2014 was a very cold month for Greenland, but no data shown

    Dec 2004 was very very cold for Greenland, but the graphic doesn’t show it

  11. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you are using a map of GHCNM version 3.3.0. The data for Greenland are in ERSST version 4.0.0. This map shows both datasets merged: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201510.gif
    As you can see, the temperature in most of southern Greenland is above normal.

    • gator69 says:

      As you can see, the temperature in most of southern Greenland is above normal.

      No, the “massively adjusted” and fake temperatures are slightly above a meaningless and cherry picked average.

    • Latitude says:

      …and for some strange reason…their 500 mb map shows the opposite

    • Disillusioned says:

      Martin, are you that stupid? That is what NOAA CREATED — after their interpolation and extrapolation computer games of the original data (from which there are no such data)! What you’re looking at, NOAA did not record. Your image is of what they made up for Greenland. SHEESH!

      • AndyG55 says:

        It so funny that he continues to display his abject ignorance about… well… everything.🙂

        Yes.. he is that stupid. !!

    • R. Shearer says:

      Mr. Smith, yesterday you said, “No, rah, 2C was never believed or claimed to be a tipping point.” I was wondering if you were lying or just ignorant of the truth.

      Just one of multiple sources to prove you wrong, ”Climate scientists frequently warn of the 2C global warming tipping point, saying that if average temperatures rise beyond that threshold, irreversible damage will be done.” http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/07/25/scientists-identify-evidence-of-climate-change-tipping-point/

      • AndyG55 says:

        As I’ve said before.

        As an Anti-CO2 crusade, the AGW farce has been an ABYSMAL FAILURE.

        CO2 emissions around the world will continue to INCREASE. probably at an accelerating rate.

        NOTHING they have tried has done anything, or will do anything, to reduce global CO2 emissions by more than an itsy-bitsy, meaningless amount

      • Martin Smith says:

        No, R. it doesn’t. If you read the abstract of the study, nowhere does it say that 2C is a tipping point. The news article makes the same claim you agree with, but that isn’t evidence that climate scientists claim that 2C is a tipping point. The actual claim is that we should set 2C as the upper limit for AGW so we can AVOID hitting a tipping point. IOW, staying below 2C will allow the world to avoid the tipping point.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And the whole 2C crap is a pure invention with ZERO scientific backing.

          Even Shelhummer, the moron that came up with it , admitted as such.

        • David A says:

          The IPCC uses that number as far as when they think harm will outweigh benefits. Of course, there is no global increase in droughts, floods the rate of SL rise etc…. so far we have only benefits, as in one billion more people eating due to the increase in CO2, the IPCC is propaganda disguised as science..

        • Martin Smith says:

          I don’t think so, David. We are already seeing harm. We aren’t seeing benefits. The items you list are not happening.

        • Henry P says:

          Las Vegas shows warming [especially minima] since 1973
          this is where they turned desert into oasis

          in Tandil, Argentina, minima have fallen, quite dramatically, since 1973
          this is where they cut all the trees….

          what part of warming’s benefit do you not understand?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I vote we put Martin in a biosphere dome with NO CO2, several packets of seeds and a CO2 scavenger that removes ALL the CO2 he admits. We will leave him for a year to grow his own food.

          We can be nice and send Al Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Mann et al. to keep him company.

          The Gorebot suited up for his year of CO2 free living:

          So report back to us Little Gorebot after your year in Alarmist Utopia.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Once again, Martin doesn’t “think so” without bothering to Google “Co2 greening earth”.

        • Doug says:

          “I don’t think so, David. We are already seeing harm. We aren’t seeing benefits. The items you list are not happening.”

          I’ve been wondering for weeks who Marty reminds me of, and with that reply it finally clicked: Marty is the Black Knight! [start at 2:50]

        • Latitude says:

          Martin Smith says:
          November 22, 2015 at 1:27 pm
          I don’t think so, David. We are already seeing harm.
          ====
          Martin, can you describe to me exactly what harm?
          …and how global warming does that without affecting temperature?

        • “We are already seeing harm.”

          True, but Martin Smith didn’t provide evidence that his petulance is the result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The null hypothesis stands:

          Smith would be the same under 290-350 ppmv.

        • R. Shearer says:

          You are just a liar then. Thanks for more proof.

        • R. Shearer says:

          You are a liar Mr. Smith, proven over and over again.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We are already seeing harm. ”

          BULLSH*T !!! Yet again.

          There is absolutely nothing untoward happening with the climate..

          We are NOT seeing any harmful benefits linked to atmospheric CO2, because there has been no warming that can be linked to CO2.

          The only harm is from the agenda response to the non-issue of “climate change”.
          That response is causing unnecessary economic waste throughout the world, leading to hardship for poor people in the western world and stopping 3rd world countries from getting the electrical power that they so desperately need to develop. Its sickening to watch.

          There have been massive benefits in food supply and biosphere enhancement though.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” Of course, there is no global increase in droughts, floods the rate of SL rise etc”

          David, Martin agrees with you , he says

          Martin agrees with you.. He says, “The items you list are not happening.”

          First sensible thing you have sever said, Martin.. well done.

    • Martin, ERSSTv4 is an index of sea surface temperatures derived from buoy and ship readings. It does not use any land based data.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And has it got the “Karl” fictional adjustments in it !!

      • Martin Smith says:

        I understand that Karl, but the two datasets merged together allow for skillful infilling. However, we now know that GISS decided to publish the result for October before receiving temperature data from Greenland. The data will be updated when that data arrives. It may have arrived already.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    On October 24th, Greenland Summit camp set a new record LOW October temperature

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Let’s see what UAH says for “NoPol” in the last 5 years

  14. sfx2020 says:

    Satellite data shows Greenland both cooling and warming at the same time.

  15. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Many wonderful ways for Tom and NOAA ‘National Centres for Environmental Information (propaganda)’ to manufacture the “Hottest Month Ever”, by hundredths of a degree.

  16. Windsong says:

    There are several airports in Greenland that are on the NWS/FAA Mesonet, and those pop up right away on the NWS Weather and Hazards Data Viewer. Was able to spot several with a few clicks, and those would be better/more easily maintained on the ground than the AWS locations. The airports and the ICAO codes: Thule AFB (BGTL), Narsarsuag (BGBW), Kulusak (BGKK), Stroemfjord (BGSF), Jacobshavn (BGJN), Godthaab (BGGH).

    There must be a method to retrieve the data; the island cannot be “no data.” The truth is out there.
    (Fox and Dana, we may need you again.)

    • AndyG55 says:

      I found those too, but haven’t time to hunt further.

      There is actual temperature data for Greenland out there somewhere.. maybe in a few days I’ll have time to go searching properly.

      • Henry P says:

        there is good data for Stroemfjord here:

        http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Sdr_Stroemfjord/42310.htm

        you can copy and paste to Excel
        first three columns is
        mean, maximum, minimum
        Where there is missing data in the annual data, you must click on the year and go into the individual months.
        Where you find a month with the missing daily data, you can take the average for the month of the year before and the year after and fill this result in for the month that was missing. You average the 12 months to get in your annual result.

        Once you have the complete graph of all results since 1941, you can do the regressions from the beginning and from various other times.

        If you do it right, you could [possibly] end up with a result looking like this:

        (the rate of warming in K/annum is the result of all your linear regressions, i.e. the value before the x’s)

  17. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, it has come to my attention that GISS went public with the October report before Greenland and Brazil had reported their temperatures. The data will be updated when the data arrive. I hope you won’t complain about that, but the temperatures in south Greenland are not dropping.

    • AndyG55 says:

      In case you are illiterate and totally ignorant, as you are..

      On October 24th, Greenland summit set a new LOW October record.

      And yes, I’m sure GISS will adjust the Greenland and Brazil temps to whatever is necessary to comply with their report.

      • AndyG55 says:

        But let’s pre-empt the LIARS at GISS. Here’s the October temps for Nuuk

        An here I’ve done a quick overlay of those temps over the Nuuk averages and deviations.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Remember, the upper line is the max, lower line is the min.

          You can clearly see that those lines are BELOW the average in each case

          REAL DATA makes Martin a PROPGANDA LAIR, yet again.!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And here’s November in Nuuk so far (with forecast)

      • Martin Smith says:

        Andy, all of your Greenland examples show absolute temperature. That doesn’t mean anything in the context of this discussion. Sorry.

        • pmc47025 says:

          I see at least one graph that has average high and low compared to measured high and low. Please explain how that “doesn’t mean anything”.

        • Martin Smith says:

          It says nothing about whether the temperatures in southern Greenland are above normal or below normal. Temperature anomaly is used for that. The NOAA/NASA graphs show temperature anomaly. It can be very cold in Greenland this time of year. It is nearly winter there. But it can be very cold there and still be warmer than normal. That’s why temperature anomaly is used, not absolute temperature. This is all basic climate science.

        • gator69 says:

          That’s why temperature anomaly is used, not absolute temperature. This is all basic climate science.

          Is it?

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/falling-for-old-jedi-mind-tricks/

          And again, the baseline used for comparison is also adjusted, fake, and cherry picked.

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator, you are making yourself look ignorant. This explains temperature anomaly and why it is used instead of absolute temperature: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
          The baseline is updated when warming has increased so much that anomalies no longer drop below the baseline.

        • gator69 says:

          Marty I read that nonsense years ago, and then checked it against reality, something that you refuse to do. You blindly and willingly accept everything that the CAGW salesmen tell you.

          Now, back to that adjusted, fake, and cherry picked baseline.

        • Latitude says:

          The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

          The national maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Martin, at least one of One of Andy’s graphs shows the October Nuuk average high and low temperatures were below normal (by area below the curve). Below normal is considered an anomaly.

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator, you can’t really cherry-pick a baseline. It doesn’t matter which baseline you use as long as when you compare two graphs, both graphs use the same baseline. The baseline in an anomaly graph just represents where the 0 value is in the data.

        • gator69 says:

          All baselines are cherry picked moron. What honest scientists do is try to establish as long a baseline as possible (not just the most convenient 30 years), and work with uncorrupted data, something the CAGW salesmen refuse to do.

          And since you failed so misearbly the last time, let’s review some basic climate science again.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Martin Smith says:

          I don’t know what your point is, pmc. It may well happen that when the Greenland data is reported, it will reduce the temperature anomaly. It may well be that when the Brazil data is reported, it will increase the anomaly. Apparently, NOAA decided that the result without either of those two contributions should be reported now, which is late as it is. Normally, the data for the entire world are reported shortly after the first of the month and the monthly report is ready long before it was ready this month. Apparently there was some glitch in the reporting system. Do you really believe NOAA reported without Greenland and Brazil to commit fraud as Steven claims? Despite the obvious that the data from Greenland and Brazil will eventually be reported and included? Seriously?

        • pmc47025 says:

          Point is Martin, you said:
          “Andy, all of your Greenland examples show absolute temperature. That doesn’t mean anything in the context of this discussion. Sorry.”

          Which is not true. Do I believe a political arm of a corrupt government would hide “inconvenient” data and fudge wherever possible? Yes.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Thank you for repeating your questions yet again, gator. Here is the answer to both of them yet again: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

        • gator69 says:

          You really should read links before posting them, because you posted the wrong link, again.

          If you believe the answer is in that link, you will need to attempt to show everyone where it is, because it isn’t there.

          Are you really as dumb as you pretend?😆

        • Martin Smith says:

          That isn’t the point, pmc. You are simply trying to divert the discussion. The point is that NOAA reported without the data for Greenland and Brazil because NOAA didn’t have the data for Greenland and Brazil, and the report was late. Steven’s accusation of fraud is nonsense.

        • pmc47025 says:

          Martin, it’s good to see you admit that your statement was untrue. Accusing me of diverting the discussion? That is ironic and hilarious.

        • gator69 says:

          Hello Marty!

          Where did you go?😆

          I asked you once again to show me where in you silly IPCC link we can find answers to these…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          You wouldn’t be fibbin’, would you Marty? You can admit an honest mistake, can’t you?😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          It seems that Martin is too INCOMPETENT to follow the basic graphs and realise that October temps at Nuuk will be BELOW AVERAGE.

          A mindless, brain-dead, incompetent Goreboy.

          REAL DATA truly is not something you can cope with is it !!

    • QV says:

      We’ll see, but I think there is a strong possibility that the eventual October global figre will be LOWER after the missing figures are updated, as I said earlier, after Paris.
      In view of modern communications, and the importance of these figures, I wonder what the problem is with getting all data at the same time. I sometimes wonder if they are still using a runner with a cleft stick to collect the data from some locations.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Quite possible, QV, except that Brazil was left out too. I have no idea what the explanation for the late data is, but in the age of the “internet of things” most of these weather stations are not yet “things.”

    • R. Shearer says:

      You are a liar Mr. Smith and you’ve proven it over and over again.

  18. Disillusioned says:

    The twit-o-sphere is going stratospheric in their demonization of the Chairman of the House Science Committee and Republicans asking basic questions about non sequitur end-products put out by NOAA. The Cabal of Unconcerned Anti-Science Instigators are parading their support for the criminals too…

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUMaP0nWIAAVBtT.jpg:large

    The clime syndicate has convinced the sheep the investigators are the criminals.

    Their unbelievably-gullible followers are parading that and the anti-reality graphs from NOAA, Met Office and BOM showing a neutered 1998 El Nino and climbing temperatures – all over Al Gore’s InterWeb – displaying their scientific ignorance and their unwavering support of the clime syndicate’s attempts to make the “pause” disappear. Orwell was spot on.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually you can not be sure if those are real people. Earlier this year there was an attack on Rush L. Hundreds and hundreds of different ‘people’ When he investigated it turns out it was only about ten people manipulating bots.

      So beware of the Astro-Turf campaigns.

      I stumbled over THIS. The cartoon is wonderful and the text is to (Rasmussen poll)

      …..Even 56% of Democrats believe America is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, a view shared by 70% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Looking at ideology, a big majority of conservatives (67%), and moderates (61%) believe we are at war with radical Islam, and a plurality of liberals (42% vs 39%)

      A staggering 92% of all voters now regard radical Islamic terrorism as a somewhat or very serious threat to the United States. This includes 73% who say it is a Very Serious threat to America. ….

  19. wizzum says:

    Wouldn’t it be simple to require that when adjusted data is released that the unadjusted datea be released alongside? Then the reasoning for adjustments such as TOBS, site change, funding shortfall etc. could be shown.

  20. Henry P says:

    disillusioned says
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1855/plot/rss/from:1855

    henry says
    Do you see there is a sine wave in that?

  21. Henry P says:

    @disillusioned
    in case you were wondering about the cycle length, look here
    http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
    tables II and III

  22. John says:

    i trust a blogger guy more than i trust NASA becuase i’m a smart

    • Appeals to authority are for morons.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Proving that John is totally unable to think for himself..

      Well done, John.

      ps. I have checked SG’s analysis on a number of times when I have had time to grab the data and do the work….., and while minor errors do occasionally get made, and corrected when noted….. in the long run he is usually substantially correct.

    • Disillusioned says:

      John, I don’t trust anyone who changes the historical past. That’s propaganda.

      I suggest you begin by reading a little bit about the blogger guy. You will probably need to pull your head out of your ass first.

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/01/the-price-of-freedom-is-eternal-vigilance-2/

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/

    • AndyG55 says:

      Which is more than can be said for climate alarmista and their bletheren…

      They hardly ever admit to, let alone correct, their numerous errors.. That is NOT science.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Andy – Bingo! I have never seen a propagandist (or any of their faithful believers) admit to anything substantial. And they always make mountains out of molehills by their critics – while ignoring the Mount Everests that are purposefully built and purveyed by their religious leaders.The hypocrisy of the clime syndicate and their apologist followers is breathtaking.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And John.. You do not type like you are smart.

      Rather DUMB, or semi-inebriated, I would say.

      What ever possessed you to type such a stupid post ?

      • Well trying to talk to that ‘thing’ (Is it even human? Or a Bot…) is like talking to … air. So you likely won’t get a coherent reply or response that would do him justice! I on the other hand have been dealing with the likes of him, since this damn climate fraud manipulation was being promoted on youtube and I had to step in and be the voice of reason! Lots of good people just misled and buying into the massive propaganda campaign… And lots of these types trying to mislead them further, and try to prevent them from discovering, well information such as what is available on this site!

        Discovered this site while pointing out the B.S. to other real individuals, we call it TTFD (thumbs the fuk down) + TRUTH BOMB😀 [on pure propaganda / non science videos shamelessly promoting this and other crap]

        So thank you Steven for creating this nice resource and keeping track for us!😀

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