“The Abnormal Warmth That Prevailed In The First Half Of The 20th Century”

In 1976, National Geographic blamed glaciers which disappeared before 1956 on “abnormal warmth” during the first half of the century.

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-3-40-19-pm-down

National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 594

Everyone understood that this was occurring at the time.

cvye04dvmaaprso-1

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal

Facts wrecked Obama’s global warming narrative, so Gavin Schmidt at NASA and other people reporting to the White House simply made the 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling disappear.

graph-17

graph.png (1130×600)

This was done intentionally, as shown in this Climategate E-Mail.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to “The Abnormal Warmth That Prevailed In The First Half Of The 20th Century”

  1. RickS says:

    These people (If they really are people?) are SCUM !

    And these SCUM are TRADERS !!

    And TRADERS should be **** !!!

    So line’m up…

  2. Steve Case says:

    “In 1976, National Geographic blamed glaciers which disappeared before 1956 on “abnormal warmth” during the first half of the century.”

    So they changed their mind. You know, it’s OK for liberals to do that.

  3. Andy DC says:

    As a young person, I viewed weather records as something sacred, to be maintained with utmost reverence and respect. Honest people working hard to collect and post the data as accurately as humanly possible.

    Never in my wildest dreams could I imagine how politicized weather records would become, nor could I foresee how they have now been reduced by evil, greedy people to a worthless pile of dung.

    • gator69 says:

      Only the left would devise a way to divide us over the last safe topic of casual conversation, our weather. Now if we have a pleasantly mild day, just mentioning it can devolve into name calling.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Trying to figure out what the NCAR graph would look like with RSS attached.

    Even allowing nearly 0.2C warming from 1970-1979, scaling RSS yearly gives something like the below. I’ve scaled RSS to the same vertical scale and started 1979 about 0.2C above the 1970 NCAR value… so I’ve probably put RSS a bit too high.
    Need that missing piece of UNTAMPERED data to be sure where RSS should start.

    Notice that only the very transient El Nino peaks are above the 1941 peak in the NCAR series.

    It looks to me as though the current temperature without those transients is actually BELOW the 1941 temperature.

    Maybe someone else would like to see if they can somehow attach the REAL temperatures of RSS onto the NCAR 1974 data

    • AndyG55 says:

      LOL, just for fun, using the same principle of 0.2C warming from 1970-1979, only this time, to remove the transients, I took the RSS 3 year averages.
      Scaled to match the scale of 1974 NCAR.

      If you look at the NCAR graph is seems fairly course, so this is probably a reasonable compromise.

      Look where the current temperature ends up :-)

  5. aeroguy48 says:

    Respectfully, Mr. Heller, maybe around oh just a random date like, High Noon, EST, January 20th, 2017. Your blog might be renamed. “Truth TRUMP’s ‘Fake’ science fiction”.

    ~A long time lurker/devotee

    BTW, did Omar the ‘nuclear nut’ finally get banned or did he finally go elsewhere?

    BTW2, Colorado Wellington linked a Dinty Moore tune sung by ladies right after the war, I have been trying to find that diddy for awhile to no avail.

    In passing, thank you Tony for the service you have done to expose the fraud, and may you be a service to helping Make America Great again in the Trump administration.

    Bruce Cunningham

  6. richard says:

    very nice find.

  7. Yet more proof that natural variation and not human causation is the predominant determinant of climate.

  8. CheshireRed says:

    The undeniable observations of this type of exposure destroys AGW data credibility completely and those who support/defend these adjustments. Think of the hoo-ha made of claims of the ‘hottest year ever’…by a margin of 2/100th of 1 degree. Yet here we have manipulations and adjustments as wide as the Himalayas and from those in charge….silence. If ever this evidence should find itself put before a court it would surely deliver a slam-dunk result with associated consequences to those responsible. It can only be a matter of time.

  9. Robertv says:

    The Glacier, Rivers of Ice – 1956 Science in Action

    https://youtu.be/Zofmae_7XtE

    min 20:18

  10. An Inquirer says:

    What has happened to the Hintereisferner and Kesselwandferner since 1956?

  11. TA says:

    AndyG55 wrote: “LOL, just for fun, using the same principle of 0.2C warming from 1970-1979, only this time, to remove the transients, I took the RSS 3 year averages.
    Scaled to match the scale of 1974 NCAR.

    If you look at the NCAR graph is seems fairly course, so this is probably a reasonable compromise.”

    That’s what we need a merging of the NCAR chart and the UAH or RSS chart. What you have in your chart is the REAL temperature profile we have been living under all this time, not some hockey-stick looking thing.

    I’m curious, why did you use RSS instead of UAH? UAH shows things slightly cooler than RSS, so the profile would look cooler, too.

    Yeah, the Climate Change Gurus have hijacked the data, but we ought to be able to splice a decent chart together out of older data combined with the satellite record. That’s what I want to see.

  12. Tony says:

    I’m hoping someone can explain those graphs in more detail fro the non-scientist types like myself. Specifically what each data point means? Smoothing? NCAR? What the extra graphs on Andys post mean? Just how did they makes the 1940’s disappear? How did the scientist respond when caught, was it just an, “oops, my bad?” No over simplification is too much…Pretend I’m a 6th grader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.