NASA : Erasing The Past To Bring Funding To The Present

Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was getting hot with a radical change in climate conditions, and glaciers were disappearing.

02 Nov 1922, Page 8 – The San Bernardino County Sun at Newspapers.com

Fake data from NASA now says Earth was cooling, and 1922 was one of the coldest years on record.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to NASA : Erasing The Past To Bring Funding To The Present

  1. Griff says:

    And now it is getting hot again -hotter, in fact than before – and it is clear that there is an additional climate driver over and above natural climate cycles.

    and the arctic is warming faster than other parts of the planet, which will have serious knock on effects on climate and on weather systems

    for example Alaska is warming at twice the global rate – something not mentioned on this site among all the demonstrations of ‘not warming’ in other US states

    http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Leaked-climate-change-report-outlines–439353963.html

    • gator69 says:

      No, it is still not as warm as theMWP, and no there is no “new” driver of climate.

      Alaska is not the globe.

      Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

    • RAH says:

      That GLOBAL warming sure gets around. A place gets hot and it’s there. It gets cold and it’s somewhere else. It’s GLOBE TROTTING warming is what it is!!!!

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Sure Griff, make it up as you go along.
      Show us some real data. Show us the measurements of CO2 causing warming.
      Waiting…..

    • Mr Grimnasty says:

      Garbage, HADCRUT clearly shows current Arctic temperatures are the same near as damn it as 1930/40 peaks.

      Antarctic shows no sign or warming either.

    • Andy DC says:

      Where is all this imaginary heat? The eastern two thirds of the US has been averaging well below normal since 7/22. Chicago has had only 0ne 90 degree day since July 1. Most of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin have not had even one.

      This summer is astronomically cooler than it was in the 1930’s, when Michigan was 112 and Wisconsin was 114. When Chicago Midway had a week straight of 100 degree days, with a peak of 109. Why do you keep denying the dozens of verifiable charts presented on this blog that clearly show that summer heat has been declining for almost 100 years?

  2. RAH says:

    I kinda like this graph. Short, sweet, gets the point across.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Looks like Griff can spot the “RAPID” warming here.

      • Andy DC says:

        I can spot it! One year of rapid warming in 2015-2016.

        Of course it was due to a very strong El Nino. But I’m sure Griff and friends no doubt got very worked up and excited nevertheless.

  3. GW Smith says:

    Perhaps more study is needed on “Climate drivers” and “serious effects on climate.”

  4. Mark Fife says:

    I did a quick grab of NASA’s data. I also happen to have several different sets of land based data from Berkeley Earth. So I threw this quick comparison up. My conclusion is NASA’s chart matches pretty well to a chart of data I know to be complete garbage, therefore it must be garbage too.

    I have all the data I have down loaded converted to a SQL database so I can do analysis and data diving very quickly. I have three data series, one being the NASA data. The other two are from Berkeley Earth. One series is all their data which is really so much junk. About 30% of it is comprised of stations with out a single complete year (meaning less than 12 months, many are less than 5 months) and duplicate data. Most of the garbage data is in the 1980 to 2004 time frame, which is far as their data goes.

    The third series consists of the only three stations in their record that maintained continuous temperature readings from 1880 to 2004.

    There are a lot of obvious differences between the NASA data and the BE data, but it does jive very well during the period of “accelerated warming”.

    Meaning if NASA’s data is really close to Berkeley Earths pile of cow manure I would deduce it is made of the same material.

    Considering the 1930’s high temperature exists in the Berkeley data, is also reflected in the CET, and other data series, but is entirely missing from NASA’s data I would guess NASA has added some serious let’s reduce the prior warming crapola to their data set.

    Honestly, going through the Berkeley data at some length it seems like there are only two errors. They do have a lot of short term, incomplete, and duplicate data. The other issue is you can’t just average what you got and plot a chart when the number of stations reporting has changed so drastically. How do you create a data series of estimated annual global averages out of a record like that?

    • Mark Fife says:

      Sorry, I messed up the legends. This is the correct chart.

      • Mark Fife says:

        For those curious, this chart shows the Berkeley Earth full data , the data with partial and duplicate years removed, and the number of stations reporting per year.

        • RAH says:

          Quite frankly I think that anything produced in any field d produced at Berzerkly needs to be treated with a large dose of skepticism. It should considered garbage until proven otherwise.

          • Gator69 says:

            I have a study on the siting issues of BE stations that I can share when I get home. Let’s see if I remember to post it later.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The alarmist make comments if someone his a petroleum geologist or other related productive job, but look at the funding for Berkeley.

            All of it is social totalitarian money, Anonymous.. possibly a Soros or Steyer related group…

            I wouldn’t trust one little thing any of those who have SOLD themselves to the AGENDA did. !

  5. gator69 says:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract

    According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.

    The current rating of surface stations (82.5% surveyed) as of 07/30/2012

    CRN Rating:

    CRN1-2, – 7.9%

    CRN3-5, – 92.1%

    1 Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with
    a slope below 1/3 (<19°). Grass/low vegetation ground cover
    3 degrees.

    2 Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding
    Vegetation 5°.

    3 (error 1°C) ‐ Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating
    sources within 10 meters.

    4 (error ≥2°C) ‐ Artificial heating sources <10 meters

    5 (error ≥5°C) ‐ Temperature sensor located next to/above an
    artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot,
    or concrete surface

    https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

    92% of those surveyed stations had a warming error of 1c or greater, and apparently 0% had a cooling error. Now what were those "adjustments " again?

  6. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    Weather in general, extreme or not.
    DMI has this ranking of dry and wet summers.
    Tørre somre top-10 Våde somre top-10

    År Millimeter nedbør
    År Millimeter nedbør
    1 1976 49 1 1980 323
    2 1983 55 2 2011 321
    3 1899 91 3 1879 317
    4 1975 96 4 2007 310
    5 1887 98 5 1927 299
    6 1995 110 6 2002 288
    7 1955 113 7 1891 286
    8 1876 114 8 1882 285
    9 1904 114 9 1953 284
    10 1996 120 10 1877 278

    It seems not to have changed so much over all these years.
    Like Lamb said, let us monitor what we have before we draw conclusions.

Leave a Reply

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