Government Climate Math : The Average Of Negative Numbers Is A Positive Number

The average daily July temperature at all NOAA US HCN stations has dropped since 1895.

NOAA doesn’t adjust daily temperatures, but after they get done hacking the monthly temperatures, they turn a July cooling trend into a warming trend.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

They accomplish this feat through an impressive hockey stick of data tampering, which cools the past about 1.5  degrees Fahrenheit and warms the present about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit . Particularly striking is the spike in tampering after the 1998 El Nino.

Twenty eight out of thirty-one days in July have cooled since 1895, but through the magic of data tampering and junk science, NOAA turns this cooling trend into a warming trend.

The hottest day in US history was July 14, 1936 when afternoon temperatures averaged 96F, and there was a huge swath of 110+ degree weather across the US.

Below you can see all of the daily temperature trend graphs for July.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Government Climate Math : The Average Of Negative Numbers Is A Positive Number

  1. Edmonton Al says:

    How long is Pruitt going to accept this nonsense?

  2. Andy DC says:

    Every one of those charts produced by Tony is based on untampered actual temperature data.

    It is totally obvious that alarmists have been performing data “adjustments” to force the data to match their preconceived conclusion (dangerous warming). Tony has not needed to touch the data at all to prove his conclusion (no dangerous warming).

    Who would you believe? “Scientists” that tamper with the data to create unwarrented fear, designed to keep their multi-billion dollar gravy train going, or Tony, who never touches the data he uses from a verifiable, independent source?

    Plus the alarmists are the ones that perpetuate one discredited lie after another. Hurricanes are worse, tornadoes are worse, floods are worse, droughts are worse, heat waves are worse, Greenland and Antarctica are melting, polar bears are dying off, sea level rise is accelerating, etc., etc.

  3. jb says:

    I think that it is possible. Suppose for the 28 days where the negative trend was observed over time, the change on each day was -0.01 degrees, for a sum of -0.28 degrees. But on the 3 days where the positive trend was observed the change was +0.10 degrees, for a sum of 0.30 degrees. Then the net over all of the month would be +0.02 degrees. (I am not trolling. I am expressing a one way that it might be possible to reach a + result. Not highly probable though.)

    • Bitter&twisted says:

      But it isn’t.

    • neal s says:

      You can check for yourself. Just July 1st and 2nd combined have a greater decrease than the combined July 18,19,20 days with the slight increase. This isn’t even counting all the other July days with decrease.

      No need for supposition. Open your eyes and look. Whether your supposition is probable or not doesn’t even matter. The data shows much greater decrease over those July days with decrease than the slight increase in the three July days with increase.

      • jb says:

        I’m not arguing the data — I am arguing the combined headline “Government Climate Math : The Average Of Negative Numbers Is A Positive Number” and the following statement “Twenty eight out of thirty-one days in July have cooled since 1895, but through the magic of data tampering and junk science, NOAA turns this cooling trend into a warming trend”
        That is not correct, as I have demonstrated.
        Open your eyes first.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I understand your hypothetical but it doesn’t make the headline and the statement “not correct“.

          They did get a warming trend out of raw numbers that shows a cooling trend and they did accomplish it by cooling the past and warming the present in their “adjustments”.

          They don’t even argue against this point as far as I know. They insist their data tampering is legitimate and scientific.

        • neal s says:

          My eyes are open. Tony’s headline is not about a hypothetical situation. It is about a particular real world situation. You are arguing that in a hypothetical case, Tony’s headline would be incorrect. Go live in your hypothetical world. I choose to live in the real world.

          I hypothesize that you are a loon, and you can’t possibly prove me wrong, because it is just hypothetical on my part.

          Of course, you are doing a fine job of proving yourself a loon in the real world too.

  4. Patrick says:

    Gary F @ Yahoo Answers makes the argument that they have been adjusting past data at many stations downwards because of the “UHI Effect”. Not sure how they derive “how much” adjusting to perform. I’ll post his link later. Just wanting to get any thoughts on this matter.

    Thanks in advance!

    • Menicholas says:

      Cooling the past to adjust for uhi, is exactly the opposite of what would be done if you are honestly correcting for uhi..
      Urban heat island effect is growing worse as urbanisacion overtakes more and more places and becomes more and more prevalent and we use more and more energy and pump more and more heat out of our buildings and into the air.
      You don’t even have to think about it for a minute to realize that Urban heat island Corrections should be cooling the present or warming the past. But the correct way to deal with it is just to use station sources that have not undergone changes in land use.

  5. Patrick says:

    Gary F didn’t provide a link to the methodology, but here’s his response :

    ” … As you state in your answer, Hansen’s previous average (59F for the period 1950 to 1980) was based on 30-40 years less data. Since then, the temperature record has been improved to remove bias in the temperature data caused by the urban heat island effect, changes in the locations of recording stations, the time of day when observations were recorded, and changes in instrumentation. … ”

    Just wondering if anyone had a good response to his claim?

    • Gator69 says:

      Ask Gary how much they adjust for contemporary UHI.

    • Menicholas says:

      The response is summarized in a whole bunch of articles about the sum total of all of their adjustments.
      Sum total of all their adjustments exactly matches changing carbon dioxide.
      The odds of this occurring randomly are 0.
      You can dive down into it as far as you want and talk about it all day long but that’s what it all adds up to. Every single adjustment smoothes out the line and makes it look like the Earth has warmed smoothly when it hasn’t. Temperature has gone up and down and up and down. And they’re just smoothing out the line with every adjustment and making it look like it’s doing nothing but going up.

      • David A says:

        In addition there is zero identification of the stations that showed a cooling through the 1970s, and how and why exactly that was adjusted out

    • Frank K. says:

      “Gary F didn’t provide a link to the methodology…”

      If there is no documentation of the methodology (i.e. computer codes and detailed algorithm descriptions), that is reason enough to be highly suspicious…

  6. arn says:

    3rd commandement of the climate mafia.

    Though shalt turn any number and statistic into a hockey stick.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    How about this: to eliminate UHI from consideration, mask the measurements to exclude counties that now contain greater than 50k people, from the entire historical record.

    Then, in a separate operation, reverse the mask, and only include them.

    Plot the two resultants together.

  8. AZ1971 says:

    How can they honestly scrub the ’98 El Niño from existence? Do they forget that the Internet is forever and a cursory Google search will yield untold numbers of articles detailing how unprecedented that event was? And how can they POSSIBLY claim that ’96 was WARMER than the ’98 El Niño, as outlined in their graph?

    Yes, to anyone who says “Who are you going to trust—anonymous trolls on the Internet or the scientists who have made this their life’s work?” I will go with answer C: the data itself, free of revisions.

    • ScottM says:

      El Nino makes things warmer globally, but effects vary regionally from warmer to cooler. This is US-only so you might need to alter your expectations. At any rate, the El Nino is more apparent in the second (adjusted) graph than in the first, which undermines your argument.

  9. garyh845 says:

    What an effort Tony – do you ever sleep?

  10. CheshireRed says:

    Another devastating post.

  11. Kevin says:

    Why don’t you send this to the 16000 scientists worldwide so far who have agreed on the effects of global warming and climate changed? I would love to hear their response to your stuff.

    • tonyheller says:

      ROFL – I send it to NOAA and NASA every day. They have no interest in facts.
      I doubt that 0.1% of your 16,000 scientists have any expertise in radiative physics.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Or the 30,000 that signed the Oregon Petition

      At least they knew what they were signing.

      The 15,000 has been shown to be full on people purely in it for the “feel-good”

      zero real science.

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.