How They Got Rid Of The 1940-1970 Global Cooling

Official government temperature graphs used to show no net warming from 1870  to 1970, and about 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal

NASA/NOAA have been steadily wiping this post-1940 cooling out, and now have completely erased it.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

They accomplished by changing the stations that were being used. Between 1940 and 1970, the average latitude of GHCN/GSN stations with daily temperature data linearly moved more than 20 degrees closer to the equator. This introduces a huge warming bias and allowed them to commit the biggest scientific fraud in history.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd_gsn.tar.gz

In 1940, the set of GSN daily stations was heavily dominated by Russia, with almost no stations in Asia, Africa, Canada, South America, Antarctica, Middle East, China or Greenland, and few in the US, Australia or Europe. The temperature record from NOAA/NASA is a complete farce.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to How They Got Rid Of The 1940-1970 Global Cooling

  1. dimitri_Kissov says:

    Dear Sir,
    I would like your opinion on whether a career in “rocket science” is a good idea. My son loves space and the technology, I wonder if it will never get back to even the “golden” age of Apollo? Is that a dead end for science?

  2. CO2isLife says:

    This article answers the question why.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/climate-science-on-trial-the-criminal-case-against-the-alarmists/

    This one tracks the history.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/a-tale-of-two-cities-cherry-picking-locations-to-manufacture-warming/

  3. Dan Zielinski says:

    Very interesting as always! One question, though, if temperature stations in 1940s were dominated by Russia, was there a cooling bias in the data? (Not that 40s were very cool) If such bias did exist, couldn’t that cause the 40s to become ‘warmer’ if temps had been recorded at today’s larger number of lower latitude stations? Sorry if this seems like a dumb question. I don’t know how you keep all this stuff in your head but am glad that you do.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Try The ‘Station drop out’ problem by KevinUK (DITC)
      and the articles at DiggingInTheClay around the same time period such as Canada – Top of the Hockey League (Part 1) which shows how droping the northern most Canadian stations changed the temperature record.

      E.M. Smith at ChiefIO also worked on the station dropout problem.
      On the “march of the thermometers”

      And from the Russians…

      Russia affected by Climategate

      A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

      The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

      Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

      Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

      The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

      Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

      Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

      The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

      The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

      On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

      IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

      The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

      Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
      https://web.archive.org/web/20110606030202/http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

    • Mark Pawelek says:

      In 1940s those were the readings – from Russia. How can they take readings from Asia, Africa, Canada, South America, Antarctica, Middle East, China and Greenland when there were hardly any weather stations there? Very little was read there. I bet nearly all their readings are extrapolated. NOAA don’t seem to have a problem finding data when there is none to find, yet their excuse for ignoring satellite data continues “Can’t use satellites because they only began in 1978”

  4. resistance says:

    Accuracy
    Precision
    Statistically valid sampling
    Siting
    Calibration
    Significant figures

    They’re total hacks. Fake science.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    “The temperature record from NOAA/NASA is a complete farce.”

    That has been known for quite a while.

    Thing is, even realist scientists still use it. Why ????

    I get very skeptical when someone matches something to GISS/NOAA or any of the related tribe of surface data sets.

    If you are matching them.. you are doing something WRONG !!

  6. R Shearer says:

    It’s kind of like Valerie Jarret remarking on flowering trees in early March after having moved from Chicago to Washington DC.

  7. Peter says:

    Why would NASA call their anomalies “estimates”? Are they not sure? Are they guessing the temperature? None of their other graphs seems to be “estimates”.

Leave a Reply to resistance Cancel 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.