Ever since Joe D’Aleo’s paper came out showing how almost all warming is due to data tampering, Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Fake Earth has been telling the press that temperature adjustments reduce warming.
Joe D’Aleo captured this NOAA graph for Maine in 2012.
Compare vs. their current graph.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Maine used to show no warming, and their hottest year was 1913. The same year that California set the world’s hottest temperature of 134F. NOAA has since massively cooled Maine’s past, and completely erased the hot year of 1913.
Climate experts are also working hard to erase the 1913 record heat in California.
Why does NOAA abstain from releasing any scientific justification for their data manipulatuons? Was 2012 so long ago it was still the dark age of science when people were incapable of reading a digital thermometer?
To me this smacks of some combination of lying and incompetence, then and now. These are not mutually exclusive. They could be lying and incompetent at the same time. The only combination which is not possible is for them to not have been lying before, not have been incompetent before, not be lying now and not be incompetent now.
The common past up to 2012 between both those graphs did not actually change. So why did the graphs change? There is no reasonable justification for the data laundering that has been done. It is my sincere wish that before Trump leaves office, that enough perpetrators will be held to account for committing this fraud, that so called scientists will never seriously think about lying again.
The need is ever greater to show a greater r-value correlation to the atmospheric CO2 content because we’re gearing up to have a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
Also, the news reported the current record high for Greensboro NC was set in 1913.
If they cannot provide valid scientific reasons for their blatant fraud, it would seem that the alarmists have committed a prosecutable crime.
They always have an excuse. And the adjustments magically always go the same direction.
They are shameless about seemingly having all their of their adjustments being warming biased. Are you aware of any cooling biased adjustments, and if so, approcimately what percentage are? If it is less than say 10%, that would seem to be a smoking gun in an obviously blatant attempt to create a fraudulent data set.
I wonder what the excuse will be when they start corrupting the Radiosonde databases and output.
I did not expect this crap to end overnight after the election but I did expect there to be visible signs that this administration was moving on it by now.
They are already corrupting the radiosonde data.
And are there sufficient copies of those records to be able to demonstrate the tampering, adjustments, in other words FRAUD, to the rest of the world ?
Looks like if the data does not fit the narrative, then change the data.In my opinion, this blatant data manipulation is utter bovine excrement!
Quite frankly, I am really pissed off by these revisions given that I haven’t seen any satisfactory reasons for them. In my graduate econometrics courses the professors jokingly said, “well sometimes you have to massage the data ” (to get the desired results). These changes sure looks exactly what they were talking about!
Adjustments don’t change anything but the cartoon squiggly line.
97% of all modern freak science adjustments are increasing warming
or sea level rise((so that rich scientist prick can maintain their high standards of living ,their Villas and Sport at the tax payers expense)
the remaining 3% are an alibi/excuse for them they can point at to prove that not all adjustments are upwards.
(i tend more to 99%,but 97% is the magic number of consens-nonsense)
Not all “adjustments” increase trends.
Leif, the solar god (in his own mind), has done everything he can do to flatten out the solar data and bully his changes through the system.
Why flatten the solar data? because then it can’t be used to show that is where the very slight warming has come from.
I don’t know what happened to Leif. Several years ago when I would read his comments I thought he was one of the few scientists left still possessing true integrity. He used to fervently state how a true scientist had to follow the data to wherever it led and adapt his thinking accordingly. Then, in the past few years it seems like his mind was made “right.”
Money has changed so many minds.
When one has the choise of being piss poor and ridiculed for the rest of your live or to become rich and honored-
one may get lost in corruption.
Why flatten solar data?
You can fool people to pay co2 tax
but you can not fool them to pay a sunlight tax.
(anyway-the adjustments always go the direction to keep the scam alive
BTW-who in hell would blame our main energy source that is responsible for 99.9999999% of the heat on our planet for warming
when he can blame the superweak man made co2((which in fact is not man made but was for billions of years part of our atmosphere((WITHOUT turning earth into a fireball)) and is just released back)) climate gas which is >0.01% of our atmosphere.
That’s just like blaming the el nino for causing a hurricane instead of blaming my fart.
We do have to remember who pays Berkley Inc.. ie The Dodgy Bros.
They are paid almost totally by leftist globalists.
Their scientific maleficence is BOUGHT and PAID for.
Wrote this up as an example in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. Also used Michigan and California as examples that look exactly like Maine. The forthcoming change was announced by NOAA in a paper 2010. The changeover from old processing software Drd964x to ‘new and improved’ nClimDiv was ye2014. The new software gave all but 8 states ‘new and improved’ warming. For CONUS, the decadal warming trend was almost doubled.
Their arrogance will be their undoing (at least I hope it will) because at present they appear impervious to any sort of official scrutiny. Maybe they have carte blanche to do what they want? In the UK the entire political establishment is still hopelessly enthralled by ‘tackling climate change’. It’s the biggest collective madness I’ve ever seen since everyone wore flares.
It’s amazing how such egregious adjustments aren’t attracting the ire of industry watchdogs, let alone Trump et al. Or maybe it’s not amazing at all, given the number of snouts in troughs. A sad indictment if you ask me.
And some are real pigs. Haven’t heard anything new about the Shukla scandal.
Trump has not seemed to have drained any of the NOAA swamp.
What is holding him back??
There is a lot of swamp other than NOAA. Deep state, rinos, Congress, … Trump has a lot on his plate in addition to climate and the repudiated Paris Accord.
Pruitt is red teaming the endangerment finding. That should start to drain the NOAA swamp, when the red team produces this stark example for all to see.
Are you freaking kidding me? What other Republican primary hopeful would’ve pulled us out of the Paris Accord? Trump is in the swamp literally up to his eyeballs and has very little support from anybody except those of us out in the real world.
He is making amazing progress and as Rud says he is fighting on every front imaginable. It took decades for the swamp to become infested the way it is, and were not going to drain it overnight. Good grief!
The way for Trump to drain the swamp is to allow the leftists plenty of rope to hang themselves, campaign all out to have more Republicans rather than RINO’s in Congress and get a supermajority in the Senate in 2018. Once that is done, then the real swamp draining will commence.
Trump is a brave American hero, giving his absolute best every day. I trust real Americans will see that and give him the genuine support that he deserves.
While I agree with most of what you said, I do have some criticism for Trump (just a little). In my humble opinion, on day one he should have fired up the printing presses and began printing pink slips by the thousands. And I mean literally by the thousands. He should have cleaned out entire agencies (most of which should not even be resurrected). If it were me, this is precisely what I would have done. Controversial? .. perhaps, but there isn’t thing one that Congress or anyone else could have done about it, for the executive branch has complete control and authority over said agencies.
He’s gonna let us enjoy the freak show a little while longer.
It seems “for the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”
Tony, thank you so much for your Herculean efforts in bringing the actual truth out about these fraudulent “adjustments.” Joe D’Aleo and Craig Idso’s paper is getting attention, but it was your stalwart efforts that laid the groundwork for it all, and you have been doing it for years now.
I can tolerate the supposed needs for adjustments to the MSU data because they are interpreting captured data into a temperature format. And the problems with orbital drift and orbital decay necessitate the need to continuously make corrections to overcome the errors. But UAH and RSS have the exact same data to work with and we see how they devise disparate methods in response, so that in itself adds to the uncertainty of their results.
But what possible justification can there be to adjust temperature records that were initially captured as temperature? If there is reason to believe that the captured data is flawed, then it should be discarded. How can you possibly justify going back 90-100 years ago and revising the data that was captured and recorded then? This is such complete nonsense and must be stopped. Whether these shenanigans are due to incompetence or fraud are irrelevant to the fact that the scientific credentials of the actors responsible should be removed and all of their previous work deemed as suspect.
“But UAH and RSS have the exact same data…..”
Not exactly correct. From Jo Nova:
“Five reasons UAH is different to RSS
UAH agrees with millions of calibrated weather balloons released around the world.
RSS now agrees more with surface data from equipment placed near airports, concrete, airconditioners and which is itself wildly adjusted.
In the latest adjustments UAH uses empirical comparisons from satellites that aren’t affected by diurnal drift to estimate the errors of those that are. RSS starts with model estimates instead.
Two particular satellites disagree with each other (NOAA-14 and 15). The UAH team remove the one they think is incorrect. RSS keeps both inconsistent measurements.
Diurnal drift probably created artificial warming in the RSS set prior to 2002, but created artificial cooling after that. The new version of RSS keeps the warming error before 2002, but fixes the error after then. The upshot is a warmer overall trend.
UAH uses a more advanced method with three channels. RSS is still using the original method Roy Spencer and JohnChristy developed with only one channel (which is viewed from three angles).”
RAH, I appreciate the response but we are not differing in our assessments. UAH and RSS do use the exact same data captured form the MSU data. How they interpret is different as you articulately expounded. That was exactly my point. How two entities can use the same data base and yet come to differing conclusions as to what is revealed.
“UAH uses a more advanced method with three channels. RSS is still using the original method Roy Spencer and JohnChristy developed with only one channel (which is viewed from three angles).”
The way I see it, if the two methods did not yield data that varied at least a little bit then there would be no reason for the UAH to go to the trouble of using three channels. I assume that My supposition is that Drs Christy and Spencer selected the more complex three channel method they use because they believe it to be more accurate than the single channel method that RSS uses and thus the data produced by the two methods must vary.
If this that is not the case then someone will have to explain to me why the two systems use different methods if both consistently produce identical data.
And they use “climate models” for some of their “adjustments”
Quite LAUGHABLE really !!
Much like military intelligence. Information does not become an intelligence product until it has been processed.
From the US DoD dictionary:
“intelligence — 1. The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of available information concerning foreign nations, hostile or potentially hostile forces or elements, or areas of actual or potential operations.”
“processing” in that context means determining the accuracy of the information based on the grade of the veracity of the source and comparison to information from other sources.
It seems the product that results from both is usually distorted. And in both the cases it costs treasure and can cost lives. And in both cases subjective adjustments based only on internal agendas are criminal.
That’s why they are now “adjusting” the weather balloon (radiosonde) data.
Maine is where Tamino lives. Perhaps he was unhappy there was not a trend when he was certain there must be, and he petitioned NOAA to create a trend.
A few times previously you mentioned how atmospheric pressure controls temperature. Well, a new research paper will hopefully bring that idea into the mainstream – maybe you’ve seen it: http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/
Weather.unisys. : )
Unfortunately the old monthly weather reviews do not list Maine in their condensed climatological charts — just New England — but here is what was reported then (average – anomaly):
January: 32.1°F +10.4°F
February: 21.9°F -1.1°F
March: 37.0°F +5.9°F
April: 46.0°F +2.4°F
May: 53.2°F -1.9°F
June: 63.5°F -1.0°F
July: 69.6°F +0.6°F
August: 67.2°F -0.1°F
September: 58.6°F -1.4°F
October: 54.3°F +5.1°F
November: 41.4°F +3.5°F
December: 31.3°F +4.5°F
a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. -something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
Anomaliess need not apply, they have no qualifications for studying climate
I think I know what you mean, but I need more info. Could we talk more?