“NOAA Recorded”

I believe in mathematics.  Not junk climate science.

In my previous blog post, I reported that October-March afternoon temperatures were third coldest on record in the US. Bob Ward angrily responded with :

“utter BS. NOAA recorded the six months to the end of February as the 35th warmest on record.”

Bob Ward on Twitter: “As usual, your claims are utter BS

Bob made two major mistakes.  First he used the wrong six month period, Sep-Feb instead of Oct-Mar. But his big mistake is using the words “NOAA recorded.”  He should have said “NOAA reported.”  NOAA massively alters their recorded data before they report it.

Here are the NOAA recorded average daily maximum temperatures, third coldest :

Here are the NOAA recorded average monthly maximum  temperatures, third coldest :

Here are the NOAA reported average monthly maximum temperatures, 31st coldest :

Here are the NOAA adjustments to average monthly maximum temperatures, 2nd largest :

About 43% of the data NOAA used in the their adjusted calculation was fabricated by computer model, rather than record – the largest percentage of fake data on record. The fake data is marked with an “E” in the NOAA text files.

Spreadsheet

All of the data is taken directly from the NOAA ftp site. I challenge Bob to prove me wrong.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tmax.latest.raw.tar.gz

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tmax.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to “NOAA Recorded”

  1. Leigh Yaxley says:

    Does NOAA provide somewhere any explanation and justification for their adjustments?

    • Anon says:

      Let’s see:

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #1 (Land Temperatures – 2015)

      Global warming ‘pause’ caused by glitch in data

      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/global-warming-pause-caused-by-glitch-in-data-1.2239199

      TONY HELLER PREDICTION: (2015) Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/collusion-is-independence/

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #2 (Troposphere RSS Temperatures – 2017)

      Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

      (Adjusted, as predicted by Tony Heller in 2015. Right on time!)

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #3 (Ocean Temperatures – 2019)

      Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought

      Data, not models, at fault… “In the past when [the models and records] didn’t agree so well, part of that was a problem with the observations, not the models,” he said.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-01-11/ocean-warming-accelerating-faster-than-thought-science/10693080

      DATA ADJUSTMENT #4 (Australian Land Temperatures – 2019)

      Darwin Temperatures; What is going on?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/darwin-temperatures-what-is-going-on/

      I guess the normal thing to do would be to add a comment here, but I think the pattern speaks for itself.

      Q: Does anyone have any more adjustments to add to this list? It would be good to get a complete record / set.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Leigh! “Does NOAA provide somewhere any explanation and justification for their adjustments?”

      Good question, but I think it might be worthwhile to point out the difference between “any explanation and justification” and “a reasonable and reproducible explanation and justification”.

      There have been numerous claims over the years for the adjustments, but none of them have been adequate to explain the actual magnitude or timing of the adjustments. For example, there is a known (and reasonable) adjustment for variations in the time of day when the readings were taken. Analysis of actual station readings shows that there may be some very minor adjustments justified for that reason, but not an adjustment of the size which was actually made. There have been adjustments made for urban heat effects as cities grow, a very reasonable thing to adjust for — except that they often make adjustments in the wrong direction, cooling older readings instead of cooling more recent ones. Or locations are adjusted “for station changes” when there is no specific information on exactly what changes there were. And sometimes there are just changes with no reason given at all. This is especially frustrating with the older data from the first half of the 20th century. They release version after version of the historical data and each newer version has yearly values change, with older years becoming colder and colder with every new version — but what possible new station information can be found after 60, 80, or 100 years that would justify changing old data? They give reasons, but they are as believable as the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar who tells you that he “was just getting a cookie to give to a hungry man who begged for food, and gosh! I don’t see him now he must have ran away!”

      Most sceptics did not start off by thinking that the CAGW data was fraudulent. Pretty much all sceptics begin by thinking at first that this is just a case of poor judgement or weak science. It is only after some years of watching how the data is constantly changed that you begin to see such a strong pattern that the idea of fraud becomes undeniable.

      • Leigh Yaxley says:

        Jason thanks for the reply.
        I get suspicious just looking at the chart of adjustments over time because it is increasing continuously.

      • paul courtney says:

        Jason: Excellent post. It’s likely that S. Mosher and N. Stokes have on occasion tried to explain these adjustments in posts at WUWT and/or Judith Curry’s site. They go off the obfuscation charts on the subject.

  2. GW Smith says:

    Crickets.

  3. arn says:

    Even the dumbest morons have realised(as result of experiencing reality) that last few month has been extraordinary cold.So cold that many have not experienced such a cold winter before.
    But not mr. Ward who seems completely immune to reality.

    I wonder what the hell must happen and how cold the weather has to be that even he starts to realise and categorize extremly cold weather for what it is and start asking himself:”What is the NOAA trying to sell us?
    And why the hell do these idiots want such a destructive cold weather to be the norm-there is nothing within such a climate that is worth being saved”

    Such a cold winter in combination with the green new deal would kill tens of million of people in one winter.

    At least he got the six month period right-almost.
    Maybe got the year right without overtaxing himself.

  4. Jason Calley says:

    And never, never, never, any reasonable explanation of why the “adjustments” and the fabricated data have a century long, essentially monotonic trend upward. Not even a word on why the recorded data is (so they claim) becoming increasingly inaccurate since 2008 or so, when it hit an average zero adjustment. Never an explanation of why the “adjustments” change the same data over and over and over without any new site change information becoming available.

    Fraud, plain and simple. Confirmation basis is a strong human tendency, but this goes way beyond that.

  5. feathers says:

    Precision in speech use to be important.

  6. Gator says:

    Bob is right. NOAA once again recorded their fraud, and immortalized it on the interwebs. Most illegal operations with two sets of books do a better job of concealing their criminal activities.

  7. MrZ says:

    Watch NOAA now as they move into GHCNMv4
    USHCN and same stations in GHCNMv3 used to line up pretty well, both adjusted and non adjusted. They will now cut those ties and stop updating USHCN.
    Just speculating of course but save a copy for the future.

    • Gator says:

      Thanks for the correction Mr Z. NOAA uses several sets of books for their criminal activity.

      • MtZ says:

        Gator!

        You have your head in the right place. Can you please review this and give me some feedback http://cfys.nu/videos/Overview.avi
        It’s an AVI that you have to download before viewing. I know you will respond straight forward and from the heart.
        Question is would you like to see NOAA data prestented in this way?

      • MrZ says:

        Gator,
        Please come back here. I posted a video and I guess they want to make sure the content is ethical. The only unethical is my voice in it.

        • Gator says:

          Sorry, but my internet connections are extremely limited here in the hinterlands, I can barely pull this site up most days. If I have time, I’ll try and review it when I am at work.

  8. paul courtney says:

    I don’t see Mr. Ward’s response yet. Maybe he’s busy trying to figure out how he came up with six months (any six months) of “35th warmest on record” when four of those months were during the third warmest year on record, or do I have 2018 wrong? Wonder if he tells his AGW friends about this “35th warmest on record”, they’ll brand him a denier!

  9. Petit_Barde says:

    The % of faked data trend speaks of itself :
    100% is expected to be hitted within the next 2 years …

    What will be the next climate clowns data burp ?

  10. DM says:

    Graph #4 proves mann made warming;-}

  11. Pops says:

    Apparently nobody goes outside any more.

  12. The https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/ NOAA ESRL Global Monitoring Annual Conference 2019 is coming up in Boulder May 21 .

    I’ve gotten to a few since learning about them and that they are open but require registration . I’m not sure if I’ll make it there this year , but details on the OCO-3 project would interesting . And there’s some truly extreme instrumentation vendors who display . I see it as potential market for CoSy .

    Anyway , my real point is that there seems to be an air at these conferences that ` Modelers are some sort of inscrutable priesthood whose arcane algorithms are above the simple data collecting and analysing ESRL people .

    Hell , in an APL a rather competitive geometrically correct model of essential global physics could be written in likely not more than hundred succinct , mostly 1 line , definitions .

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.