In 1999, NASA published this graph, showing that the 1930s was by far the warmest decade in the US
The graph was accompanied by this text :
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
They have since eliminated the hot 1930s from the temperature record. Their current graph looks like this :
The animation below shows how they altered the temperature data to wipe out the inconvenient 1930s, and massively warm the 1990s.
The next animation uses NASA’s published data from 1999 and 2013, and shows how they turned a strong US cooling trend into a strong warming trend.
Albert Einstein sarcastically said :
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”
NASA should go to the moon again…. and stay there.
conspiracy junk. the temp in the 30s was not as hot as now. the trend for that last century is upward. also what was solar activity in the 30s, increasing or decreasing? now it is decreasing and the planet still warms. pauses in global surface temp mean nothing. it is only a fraction of total warming
The data is straight off the NASA website, dumbass. Do you think they are conspiring against your withered IQ?
Listen Robert you moron, you are obviously so brainwashed from the lefty propaganda machine you simply refuse to understand the truth when it doesn’t fit your radical ideas. Here’s proof that a government agency is once again lying to the American public, something the left used to despise, and you just fall in line like a good little soldier.
I’m kind of glad a jackass such as yourself put this post up because it shows objective people that this fight really isn’t just about global warming. This fight is about democracy itself. Socialists came close to completely taking over this country but the American people woke up just in time to put a stop to it, at least temporarily. Your time has come and gone,screwball, you had your 15 minutes of fame and now it’s time the propagandists are removed from throughout government agencies as well.
Obama warned about impending cold period. Really? http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10867203.htm
Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
Added to “Real Science Fraud File” on my blog http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/real-science-fraud-file/
Hope all ok copying across related ‘climate fraud’ stuff to my page Steve?
I wonder if it happened after “…Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.”
“…The GHCNv3/SCAR data are modified to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped….”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You are grasping at some wildly irrational straws.
It woud seem that many airport weather stations, such as BWI and Dulles in the DC area have gone from rural to densely populated over the last 50 years. Is that any justification to cool the past and warm the present? You would think just the opposite should be taking place.
What is the reason they give for the adjustments?
None. They published some docs a few years ago, but the adjustments don’t even vaguely resemble that documentation.
Why don’t some eminent scientists publish a paper exposing all those examples of temperature data that have been fiddled by NASA and challenge them to defend their “adjustments”. It would seem that providing enough sunshine would correct this fraudulent practice.
I like to take that 1999 GISS chart and update it with a recent chart, aligning at 1998 to get a better though still exaggerated depiction.
http://i44.tinypic.com/hrwlko.jpg
Reblogged this on Health Science Watch.
This could be explained by the methodology used for computing 5 year means. I am not sure how it is computed in this case, but for example if they use three years ahead and two years behind in cases where this is possible and for the end points where there are no years ahead they use more past years then the values for the last three years before 2000 would shift when more years were added. Also there could have been a change in the way they compute the means.
Utter nonsense.
If I understand it correctly, the NCDC collects the data and packages it for GISS and CRU, here are the adjustments they do, prior to the tweeks from GISS and CRU.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2luqma8.jpg
This manipulation of the past and present would appear to be the root source of AGW.
Troll harder.
This press release outlines some errors found in past temperature measurements used by NASA and new research that has led to improvement of the temperature records.
It is valid.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
In fact, here is annual documentation of the changes to the temperature analysis:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
This literature is public knowledge and has been available for quite some time. No tampering here.
Obama improved the election process by letting dead people and illegals vote. Obamacare was passed as a reform bill.
Governmentspeak carries no weight around here.
The fact that someone made some documentation outlining theoretical issues with the data set, tells you that their data tampering software is correct? ROFLMAO
Hmm. I took a look at the links “Erik” posted. They are very good. It is pretty obvious that NASA admitting to their mistake, and their data is better. I would have to disagree how any of this ties to obamacare or voting.
NASA temperature data is complete garbage, and getting worse.
Adjusting temperature records means that the historical data is corrupted and thus unusable to make any conclusions. How about we all adjusted our historical bank balances or birth certificates or the speed of light because the real numbers didn’t suit our story? Raw data and factual information can stand up to any theory.
What nonsense are you talking about?! Bank accounts?!
NASA is using RAW data and facts and just displaying a graph. They are not saying anything. Whoever reads is interpreting it.
Show me where they are displaying a “theory”
And since someone else thinks NASA facts are complete garbage, please show me something better. That’s all I am saying.
Moron alert
@ Steven Goddard
If you want to have healthy discourse related to the theme of your online article, please make your replies on-topic. Disagreements about science should be welcome and, in fact, it’s healthy for science. Calling people ‘morons’ because they provide different views from your own is not.
You wrote
…”Governmentspeak carries no weight around here.” …
and
…”The fact that someone made some documentation outlining theoretical issues with the data set, tells you that their data tampering software is correct?”…
I am a meteorologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The links I provided for you are written in plain english, not government-speak. (Btw, what is government-speak? 🙂 ). Second, I am not aware of anything that could remotely be called ‘tampering software.’
Third, all temperature data are estimates. Temperature measurements today are obtained from both in-situ (on-the-ground) gauges and satellites. The ‘raw’ temperature data are still estimates, or ‘best-educated guesses, (or yes, what you could still call theory.) For example, satellites only measure outgoing shortwave radiation from the Earth. They do not measure temperature directly. The temperature results obtained from the radiation measurements are derived from computer algorithms. Indeed, such algorithms contain biases and uncertainties that are particular to each instrument and/or computer used. Satellites are estimates. Temperature gauges on the ground are estimates; you take these estimates and get one big estimate. Your article here seems to leave this part out.
The old historical records are still available for anyone to see. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusions; that is why records are available. Yet, making improvements to ‘outdated’ measurement techniques is not ‘tampering with data’ per se. Scientific research relies on improvements. Technology has been improved since 1999, making temperature measurements more reliable. As the technology improves, scientists can, and should, re-analyze historical measurements. The research is documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature, meaning that it’s scrutinized by experts from all over, and not just within the government. All of this is transparent and made public.
Based on what is out there, I would argue that temperature measurements are getting better. Yes, there are uncertainties but the data is not garbage.
Thanks for the conversation. Keep it healthy.
-Erik
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/enoble.html
In 1999, GISS showed a strong US cooling trend since 1930, and Hansen said that in his own words. NOAA and CRU made similar statements.
GISS now shows a strong warming trend in the US during that same period, and no warnings are presented with the graphs that the data has been tampered with.
I am very familiar with the HCN station data from the 1930s, and the US was much hotter then.
When outspoken global warning advocates start turning measured cooling trends into reported warming trends, alarm bells hit peak volume.
Erik, wtf are you talking about? Gauges, mechanical gauges, on the ground are estimates? This is the problem, plain and simple. If people such as yourself think something such as a mechanical gauge is an estimate then everything is just theory, including the AGW theory which has been proven time and again to be one giant theoretical lie perpetuated on humanity.
So what you’re saying is that the data is so poor and unreliable that you can’t really draw any useful conclusion in the first place… except that NASA does exactly that because they need to generate headlines in order to justify their funding.
Science is built on empirical evidence… not on theories, models, and manipulated data. Making “improvements” to empirical data is the same thing as “manipulating” the empirical data. Period. If you don’t believe me grab a dictionary. If the data is so unreliable then don’t use it… if you’re going to use it anyway then account for the error and admit that no conclusion can be drawn.
I can already predict next month’s NASA report. Stop the presses: Hottest month on record! NASA urgently needs $100 billion more funding in order to research climate change… even though the science is already settled.
Let’s call this what it is: Data manipulation by rent-seeking climate scientists whose careers depend entirely on government largesse.
The .gov in all of its variations believes it is God. Or Natures God and deserving of absolute worship.
Check it out, dude! NASA found the thirties! And weather is not climate.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Unknown author, but the statement that rings true:
Even the use of the term “warming hiatus” shows their un-scientific bias. All we can say is that warming has now stopped. Weither it starts up again, or ever starts up again, is the whole point. Saying it is only on “hiatus” is assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. Go back to High School science and start over, please.
In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. – Unknowned Author
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
– Michael Crichton
Whatever name we use, the Western media is a collection of well paid whores.They lie for money, dinner party invitations, and speaking invitations with large honorariums and book contracts with large advances.
– Unknown Author
But with no justification… how could the adjustments be distinguished from fabrication?
– Unknown Author
A good friend of mine once remarked about the earth sciences “I would’na seen it if I had’na believed it”. – Unknown Author
If you are looking for errors that make things warmer, you will find them. – Unknown Author
So two years ago, they presumably found errors to make 1998 warmer by 0.008 C. Exactly what did they find over the last 16 months to make 1998 another 0.004 C warmer that they missed two years ago?
I would also add that each adjustment means they got it wrong last time. The more adjustments, the greater the track record of being wrong, and there is no reason to believe they are getting closer to being right. So why believe them at all?
– Author Unknown
The easiest person to fool is oneself.
– Author Unknown
There always seems to be someone leaving facts out to justify there argument. If the Vikings were growing grapes on Greenland. The Greenland Ice sheet must have been much smaller and temperatures much warmer in the North Atlantic than today.
While Errors in data may need to be corrected, It must be explained and transparent. Though it seems odd that these adjustments are not consistent. The adjustments always seem to cool the older data sets while warming the newer data. But as we all know the government has reached a consensus and would never lie to us.