Is 100% Of "US Warming" Due To NOAA Data Tampering?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tony Heller via RealClimateScience.com,

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

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

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

  1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
  2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.

You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.

NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record

NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
remain calm's picture

And here is another one that will surprise you: Obama is not a fucking liar and not a muslim,NOT

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Fake news. Fake food. Fake money. Fake data.

Sounds like a fatal case of fake thinking to me.

Jim Sampson's picture

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Wpdms_shdrlfi0...

 

Lake Lahontan 12,000 years ago.  Nevada looks pretty wet.  Supposedly one of the first stops for native Americans.

 

But hey, fuck looking at the past, right?

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Jim Sampson Dec 28, 2016 6:27 PM

January 20th 2017 

Hey NOAA scientists, you are ALL FIRED!

Signed,

President Donald Trump

ACP's picture

We're from the government and we're here to help......you falsify data to push our false narrative.

Pinto Currency's picture

Suspect that Trump will pull the b.s. rug out from underneath the NOAA, NASA, etc. on climate data.

Interesting question is going to be Europe and Canada who are religiously peddling this garbage. They will be in a difficult position.

SafelyGraze's picture

"Lake Lahontan was a large endorheic Pleistocene lake of modern northwestern Nevada that extended into northeastern California and southern Oregon"

oregon.

all of that lake water belonged to oregon.

but the lake didn't have a permit to hold the water.

and so oregon demanded that the lake be drained.

so it let it be written. so let it be done.

hugs,
ramses

 

Pinch's picture

Whoyagonnabelieve, the scientists, or the Koch-funded liars at "realclimatescience.com".

Get a brain, ya morons!

CorporateCongress's picture

Another problem disregarded here, is that massive population growth made remote monitoring stations less and less remote. This effect will show a rising trend of temp also. Anyways, trying to make predictions on 100ys of data is silly compared to the 4.5 bln years the planet is around. The natural changes in temperature are already much larger on a longer timescale than whatever effect they think they have shown.

not dead yet's picture

Typical of you true believers. You can't disprove the facts so you attack the messenger with outrageous claims. Let's see your proof. Sun scientist Dr. Willie Soon has admitted he has received some funding from those evil oil companies as it is impossible to get money from the FEDS if you're not producing propaganda to bolster the climate change agenda. When confronted Dr Soon admits the funding and then asks the questioner to prove his science wrong. All he gets is silence in return. You true believers are nothing but sheep parroting what you have been fed and don't have a clue about the science or do any research.

nmewn's picture

Climate Denier!

Obama has circled the globe at least 25 times in Air Force One trying to combat the hot/cold/wet/dry/windy/calm reality of drowning polar bears while dropping supplies of Skittles to climate scientists stuck in sea ice before being rescued in Antarctica...when will you people stop denying it?! ;-)

BennyBoy's picture

 

 How dare the article doubt Fake Climate Change!

I'll alert the Fake Media!

Arnold's picture

Algore assured me that I would have ocean front property by now.

Fucker.

froze25's picture

I don't see why they would be truthful, the climate gate emails come to mind. When the numbers don't work just make them up.

thinkmoretalkless's picture

It is a religion. You don't take their "bible" literally?

Pinch's picture

Ha! Climate denial is as close to a religion as I have ever seen

phreezerburn's picture

Serioulsy? Roger Pielke Sr has never been debated nor debunked yet and is what I would call a climate realist. It's the data, methodology and metrics employed within the paper that count and always will. He gets the AGW version of Scientology zealots showing up every time he questions the methodology employed within any pro-AGW paper. You could set your watch to it.

AchtungAffen's picture

"Roger Pielke Sr has never been debated nor debunked yet and is what I would call a climate realist"

Who said:

"As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!"

whatamaroon's picture

Tony Heller was invited to speak with Trump before his rally at Red Rocks Colorado. What Tony has been saying recently is Yes They will be FIRED, espically Gavin Smidt of NASA~ who incedently indicated he will retire Jan 20th.

stinkypinky's picture

Burning Man is underwater! NOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

 

Lake Lahontan 12,000 years ago.  Nevada looks pretty wet.  Supposedly one of the first stops for native Americans.

Yes, glacial periods and interglacial periods do have their differences.

But hey, fuck looking at the past, right?

Why? You'd miss out knowing about things like the lake that became Death Valley, the Teays River, and mind-boggling glacial outburst floods like the Missoula Floods, the Bonneville flood, or the draining of Lake Ojibway (thought to be responsible for a global cooling event by decreasing the salinity of the North Atlantic and disrupting thermohaline circulation).

Consuelo's picture

 

 

You forgot Fake tits...   It's coo - we all make mistakes...

 

 

VD's picture

the other less than overt point this post makes is that circa 1989 The New York Times dared to report facts once in a while whereas today the NYTimes is exclusively the bastion of libtard mendacity shilling.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The New York Times new media slogan.

"All the News That's Fit to Print Fake."

Ignatius's picture

When opium and cocaine were outlawed in the early 1900s it was a boon and a birth of big pharma and the profits became enormous.  My view is that this move to make CO2 quasi-illegal is to realize those same artificial racketeering profits.  The world isn't going to stop burning oil it is just going to pay a lot more for it if they get their way.

Pinto Currency's picture

Carbon tax is a tax on basic human activity as opposed to profits generated. Exactly what big gov wants when you have a depression and profits go away. Also what the oligarchs want - neo-feudalism.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I can't describe a fake POTUS, but I know one when I see one.

<My eyes, my eyes. Please, take him away. I'm begging you.>

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I'll try harder next time and mix in some truth. :-)

FreedomGuy's picture

No way. I believe all government data. Lowest unemployment rate in history, no inflation, superb recovery, honest interest rates, roaring economy, housing will go up forever.

It's all stuff you can believe in. I am totally investing in solar panels, carbon trading and Alaskan air conditioners.

Thorny Xi's picture

This doesn't seem to be actually on the climate science website. Though feel free to post a link.

I've been a regular here since this was a blogger page and you guys have really lost your mission. Now it's a Trump and Friends Propaganda Page - with the occasional interesting finance article - mostly reposts by other writers now, though. This overtly paid climate junking doesn't qualify as interesting, it's just more pandering clickbait for dummies. Maybe if you got out of the hologram and into the real world - as in, go outdoors, rather than sitting in an air conditioned and heated city or suburb shithole somewhere, you'd have noticed that fresh water doesn't start life in a bottle or a Starbucks cup and that the long term weather right where you are really is a lot different than it was 30 years ago. Taxing carbon won't change that - and at this point, I don't think anything will. Burn that shit while it's cheap and screw the future. That's the western model and it's past failsafe. But stop pretending it's not happening. Makes you look stupid.

BeanusCountus's picture

Aaaah, there it is. Could you please give me your "long-term" weather forecast? Start with next week, hi's/lows/precip/winds/sunshine/clouds/hurricanes/droughts. Go through, say, 2100. Put it on record. We will see how ya do.

Jughead Jones's picture

I agree with your post with the exception that I would be very surprised if any members of the alpha squadron reside in any towns with population s greater than 200...

JB Say's picture

I see. Look outside and try to recall what the weather was like 30 years ago. That's one I hadn't heard before. What would you say if 30 years ago I and my colleagues made predictions about, well, anything, and supported our predictions with computer models. The catch was that we demanded enormous powers be bestowed upon unaccountable bureaucrats with police powers, with large costs to be borne by the masses. For our troubles we captured billions of dollars per year in research money, fame and prestige. Then imagine that not one of our computer modeled predictions came true. Instead of going back to the drawing board we started to destroy our critics personally and professionally. Then we got caught fiddling with the data - several times - to make it better fit our hypothesis. It got so embarrasing at one point we even changed the terminology used to jusify our incomes, status and prestige. Despite all these setbacks we declared the debate was over and out critics were "stupid", evil and/or anti-science. Would you still describe my critics as stupid? Or the people who continued to believe everything I said?

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

Don't forget "fake president"!

What percentage of these 'scientists' are independent from governments and the banksters?

I suggest NONE. NASA (Never A Straight Answer), JPL, NOAA, all Universities, businesses that will benefit, get all or a large portion of their $$ from government(s). They will all "dance with the one that brung them". Can anyone post the name of any verifiably independent scientists that believe/support  this crap?

They all fail to consider heat content which includes water vapor (or lack of it - desert conditions) is the prime measurement for 'global warming', not a simple temperature measurement.

oneno's picture

Cannot name any independent scientist that believe/support this crap.

There is an independent scientist that has written a book that explains the weather in line with the law of conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics, joule heating of the pacific ocean, heat content of moisture laden air, and his plasma discharge comet model.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

You must be referring to James M. McCanney MS: www.jmccsci.com

I have been listening to his weekly radio program for about 12 years and have also read many of his books.

He is probably the only independent scientist out there, is self-funding, and says 'Greenhouse Effect #1', 'Greenhouse Effect #2', 'Global Warming' and now 'Climate Change' is garbage. I take him seriously as he has many accomplishments to show and receives no government support (someone, "they", are always trying to shut down his weekly program and his website).

Vatican_cameo's picture

 

"Fake news. Fake food. Fake money. Fake data.

Sounds like a fatal case of fake thinking to me."


Throw in "Fake Orgasm" and you've pretty much got it covered.

Mark Urbo's picture

I can say with 97% accuracy that NOAA screwed with the warming data...

 

..don't even need to look at it.

 

Global (AGW) Warming = Man Made Lies

 

Holy hand grenade of Antioch's picture
Holy hand grenade of Antioch (not verified) Dec 28, 2016 6:15 PM

I live south of the Mason Dixon line & I could skate on my swimming pool... Probably because of global warming... I could probably use Al Gores hairdryer to thaw it out, but I think it's either being used, or he left it in the trailer on the Hollywood set.

SelfGov's picture

More bullshit from bullshit artists :)

Lynx Dogood's picture

YES! They put the thermometers on black top to further the agenda!

buzzsaw99's picture

noaa is a bunch of fucking liars