## NOAA Math – Every Northeastern State Above Average

201501-201512.gif (650×475)

NOAA shows that last year the Northeastern states ranged from 25th warmest to 10th warmest since 1895. But before data tampering, their thermometers showed the average for the region to be just above the 1895-2015 average, and only 44th warmest. Due to massive data tampering, every single state in the Northeast was well above the group average.

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

### 24 Responses to NOAA Math – Every Northeastern State Above Average

1. Martin Smith says:

Steven, why do you think they only tampered with the data for the northeastern states? Or did they tamper with the other states in the opposite direction? Why would they do that if, as you always claim, they want to create warming everywhere? I don’t think you’re supposed to capitalize words like northeast. They aren’t proper nouns, are they?

• wizzum says:

The data is the data, there is no reason to tamper with it at all. If there is a baseline shift for whatever reason it will be apparent on the raw data.

• Martin Smith says:

Given the peer-reviewed explanation for each and every adjustment, what is your opinion based on, other than your tautology “The data is the data” ? If that’s all you have, then in light of the science showing why the data are wrong and must be adjusted, why should I listen to you? Do you have anything besides “The data is the data” ?

• wizzum says:

Once you start adjusting actual thermometer data you have moved from recording observations to interpretation and the data set has become subjective rather than objective.
Not scientific at all.

• Martin Smith says:

wizz, you are claiming to know more than the scientists who do the science that shows why and by how much thermometer data must be adjusted to be more correct. What science is your opinion based on?

• wizzum says:

Every adjustment of temperature data from the actual reading is a subjective adjustment and as a result the data set becomes an “artists impression”.

You are claiming it so don’t run and hide by saying I have to do my own research. Please point me to where the algorithm for adjustments have been published per station and the peer review you claim is available.

• Martin Smith says:

“Every adjustment of temperature data from the actual reading is a subjective adjustment and as a result the data set becomes an “artists impression”.”

I’m asking you to justify that with some science from somewhere. It appears to be your opinion, but it is not based on facts. Or, show the facts on which your opinion is based.

• wizzum says:

BTW Marty, the actual measurement IS the correct figure, if a bias is present for whatever reason, this should be noted and on display.
For instance: if I go to Wundermap and zoom into a station then if a bias is present due to an AC heat exchange located 6 feet away then this should be noted on the station data.
If, as you claim, each station has its bias peer reviewed and published then this should be trivial to accomplish.

• Gail Combs says:

“Given the peer-reviewed explanation for each and every adjustment”
……………

You are just too too funny!

Tell me WHY US (and UK) Psycientists have repeatedly refused to honor FOIA and even Congressional subpoenas of NOAA climate scientists then?

We KNOW from the Climategate emails that there was collusion and messing with data in order to support THE CAUSE™

Christiana Figueres, disciple of Al Gore, and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention told us EXACTLY what THE CAUSE™ was:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.

And so did Pascal Lamy, French Socialist, former World Trade Organization Director-General and major European Union bigwig.

The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple… In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….
Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?…..

The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty

“approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” means in plain language, nations are sovereign and NOT vassal states of would be United Nations Totalitarian Bureaucracy… YET.

The UK for example IS a vassal state of the EU. “Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice.” — Pascal Lamy (He should know as he was very high up in the EU before moving to the WTO.)

THE CAUSE™ of course is a ‘socialist’ Totalitarian world government where the masses have zero say.

• wizzum says:

So you are saying that calibrated thermometers, accurate to tenths of a degree are wrong?
By definition any adjustment to said reading is subjective and needs to be noted as per scientific first principles.

• Gail Combs says:

Just so those who might be new here understand why we know these adjustments are bogus, here are two examples.

They lower the old readings because of a TOBS (Time of Observation) adjustment.

Zeke Hausfeather of BEST, a dyed in the wool Climate Alarmist says on Judith Curry’s website:

“….Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960…”

However a meteorology textbook from 1918 states:

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….
……………..

…..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…

…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….

The author says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau. He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ ordinarily in the larger cities that take reading twice daily and a continuous reading too. There were 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations that recorded other aspects of the weather.

So that is one example where the correction applied by the ClimAstrologists is IN THE WRONG DIRECTION! Steven Goddard attacks TOBS directly by looking at the data and also comes up with the conclusion that TOBS adjustments are unjustified.
………….

Here is another.
Hausfeather goes on to say:

….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….

Yet notrickszone reports the findings of a carefully conducted test 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

So with just those two wrong way adjustments they change the data by more than 1 °C and that does not get into dropping rural stations and smearing the data from airports and cities for 1200 kilometers.

• David A says:

There is no problem data for every adjustment.

You misspelled pal-reviewed again.

• The stupidity of this question buggers belief.

• Martin Smith says:

Then answer it and show everyone how stupid you think I am.

• I have answered that question 500 times on this blog.

• Martin Smith says:

No you have not, Steven, and now you are avoiding it. I expected you would, so not to worry. You didn’t address this, however: The problem with your cherished RSS data is exactly the same as what you are complaining about with the RSS data. First,

“Twelve years ago, my curiosity led me to perform an analysis of the UAH TLT data, the results of which I published in a peer reviewed journal in 2003 (5). I found an apparent discrepancy at high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, which I suggested might be due to the effects of sea-ice. After my report, the group at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) decided to exclude any coverage to the south of latitude 70S from their version of the TLT, their reasoning being that the high elevations over the Antarctic was distorting the measurements. RSS also excludes data from other regions with high elevations, such as the Andes and the Himalayas. ”

And, again, the RSS data in addition to the problem exposed in the quote above, is also “massively tampered.” You always ignore these facts when you claim the thermometers are wrong and the satellites (which don’t even measure temperature) are right.

• Martin Smith says:

Sorry, that should have been:

The problem with your cherished RSS data is exactly the same as what you are complaining about with the thermometer data.

• Gail Combs says:

Martin Smith says“No you have not, Steven, and now you are avoiding it.”
…………….

All that shows is that you never ever bother to READ because you are too busy shoving UN Agenda 21 propaganda down everyone’s throat.

• Ted says:

Gail-

He doesn’t read ANYTHING. Have you ever checked out his links? Half the time they say the exact opposite of what he claims. That fraction is even worse if you count the links that are entirely unrelated to the subject he’s claiming they support. He just searches for a title he likes, and posts the link.

• Andy DC says:

Why do the adjustments always favor the predetermined conclusion? Can you show me significant adjustments that oppose the predetermined conclusion? I doubt that you can.

• Gail Combs says:

Steve Goddard plotted CO2 vs adjustments and came out with an R = 0.987
R = 1.0 is a perfect correlation. So we now know the true reason for adjustments.

And there is Mikey Mann’s real hokey stick

• Latitude says:

Gail, that is exactly what you would expect..when they tell the models an increase in CO2 will increase temps X much
What’s the strangest…..is that they seem to not be the slightest embarrassed about it

• Fred@Brissy says:

Yo Marty,
Saw a guy on WUWT claiming that UAH has 2015 as the warmest year in the USA.
Might be worth checking out to put these fools in their place.