NOAA Hiding The Decline

In 1990, NOAA published this graph of troposphere temperatures. showing 0.6C cooling from the 1950’s to the mid-1960’s, and little or no net warming from the 1950’s to 1990.

2016-04-16070909

climate-assessment-1981-1990.pdf

This was also seen in Briffa’s tree rings.

briffa_recon

briffa_recon.gif (420×320)

But if we look at current versions of NOAA and NASA temperatures, the 1950’s cooling no longer exists. The red line below is NASA 2016, which shows the same 1960 to 1980 warming as radiosonde, but does not show the 1950’s to 1960’s cooling.

2016-04-16065316

Fig.A.gif (656×446)

One reason we know that the cooling was real, is because during the 1960’s glaciers in Norway were growing for the first time in 200 years.

ScreenHunter_3425-Oct.-08-15.20.gif

Glaciers Grow In Norway

NASA and NOAA are hiding the post 1940 decline in temperature and 1970’s ice age scare, because it doesn’t fit their political mandates. It has nothing to do with science.

2016-04-16072314

sn1975_climate_change_chilling_possibilities-1.pdf

About stevengoddard

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

12 Responses to NOAA Hiding The Decline

  1. Climate communists avoid speculating on how much energy is being unduly trapped by water vapor and other gases. Given that number, engineers could work out the diameters of orbiting mirrors needed to deflect that many Watts of incident sunlight. Furthermore, if the political demands of revealed faith were to change from a warming to a cooling panic, the mirrors could simply add to the incident flux.

  2. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Stenen aka Tony, for using your keen analytical mind to document that official climate change studies are little more than government propaganda, easily altered by data selection (cherry picking), data adjustments (change) or elimination (hiding data).

    I experienced the same behavior in solar sciences and had irrefutable evidence of the Sun’s iron rich interior for several decades before finally discovering in 2000 that neutron repulsion is the heat source in the iron-rich Sun.

    The unheralded decision to REPLACE Aston’s valid nuclear packing fraction with Carl Von Weizsacker’s flawed nuclear binding energy equation at the end of WWII was missing piece of the solar puzzle!

  3. The Great Walrus says:

    Oliver: Another asinine comment, thank you. Also, your sycophantic brownnosing, just to get your irrelevant posts past the moderators, is quite revolting and shameless. What do supernovas of billions of years ago and bomb secrets from 1945 have to do with the climate of the Earth? And you call yourself a scientist? Your obsessive daily repetition of strange mantras about bombs, the interiors of ancient stars and government secrets has made you an embarrassment to serious climate skeptics. I hate to have to tell you this, but there is no connection between pulsars, nuclear secrets and climate. But perhaps you just like junk science!

    • Andy DC says:

      I guess it can get a bit tiresome and repetitive, but what Oliver is saying is that it is not just climate science that has become corrupted and rigged by Big Money and Government complicity, that other branches of science have been tainted as well.

      I believe that a similar brand of corrupt science has also spread to other fields, like Big Pharma for example, where profits come before truth and real science.

      • omanuel says:

        I agree. What started as a noble cause in 1945: “To save the world from nuclear annihilation by hiding the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms, like uranium,” has blossomed into wholesale abuse of science as a propaganda tool to control the public.

        That is exactly what George Orwell realized when he moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura in 1946 to start writing NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR

      • OrganicFool says:

        Andy, that’s right. Another big lie is the cholesterol myth. Statins are one of the biggest money-makers on a completely fabricated problem. True definition of a racket.

        On the other hand, I see how many people buy into these lies quite easily and are willing accomplices for some reason. It’s almost as if people prefer to stay in the Matrix, I guess because it’s comfortable? I prefer to know the truth about things and I feel the climate debate is just one strand in the web of delusion that keeps humanity locked up in a mental prison, like Bob Marley sung about.

        As far as nuclear science and what powers the sun, this could have merit for cleaner forms of energy. Maybe Oliver is alluding to new types of nuclear energy that is very safe and can provide power without so-called fossil fuels? But he seems like a stuck record. Maybe he could expound on this topic or provide some useful links and show how the climate debate is also related to energy.

        I was fearful of nuclear power until I realized it’s not as dangerous as I once thought. There are people that never left Chernobyl, for instance, and they have outlived those that did leave.

        Imagine what would happen however if suddenly fossil fuels were obsolete. It would have major political implications and would disrupt the world Powers and overthrow many governments that rely on them to keep political power. If they could, they would sell us air to breath like in Total Recall! I believe we can be set free from this mental slavery, but it seems it will not be in my lifetime. So I enjoy the short few days I have and try to stay cheerful and share the truth the best I can. I have lost several relationships because I don’t swallow the man-made global warming scam. It’s sad really.

      • Neal S says:

        Quotes from an article you may find interesting …

        “If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published. Consider the finding of another (yes, another) of these replicability studies, this time from a group of cancer researchers. In addition to reaching the now unsurprising conclusion that only a dismal 11 percent of the preclinical cancer research they examined could be validated after the fact, the authors identified another horrifying pattern: The “bad” papers that failed to replicate were, on average, cited far more often than the papers that did! As the authors put it, “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.”

        “What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you’ve built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons.”

        I can see this effect applying in many fields of study.

        Hmmm…

        Here is the link:
        http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

  4. sfx2020 says:

    Steven, just in case you didn’t already know, the NOAA doc you linked to
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-1981-1990.pdf

    Page 51 of that document shows sea ice data starting in 1974.

    Amazing.

  5. sfx2020 says:

    http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/9historical.pdf

    You will find the temperature data in there interesting, if you haven’t already read it, highly informative. For example:

    Global warming was on the public agenda in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as
    Northern Hemisphere temperatures reached an early-twentieth-century peak
    (see figure 10-1). Hans Ahlmann, a climatologist at Stockholm University,
    reported in the Geographic Journal that Iceland had experienced a 1.3-degree
    Celsius warming from the period 1872–1925, when the average annual
    temperature was 4.1 degrees, to the period 1926–47, when the average annual
    temperature had risen to 5.7 degrees. His article contained photographs
    documenting the retreat of the Áobrekke glacier since 1869.34 In 1950, based on
    his analysis of meteorological records, the meteorologist Hurd C. Willet told the
    Royal Meteorological Society that the global temperature trend was “significantly
    upward” since 1885, with most of the warming occurring north of the fiftieth
    parallel.35 Subsequent studies confirmed that from 1890 to 1940, the mean
    thickness of Arctic ice decreased by about thirty percent, and the area covered
    decreased by as much as fifteen percent; the intensity of the global circulation
    increased markedly, and the Earth became warmer—ten degrees warmer in the
    Norwegian Sea.36

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