Skip to content

NCDC Rewrite History

February 13, 2013
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 

NCDC have just announced that 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. In their State of the Climate Report, their figures show the top four years as :-

 

Year Degree F
2012 55.3
1998 54.3
2006 54.2
1934 54.1

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13#over

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13/supplemental/page-3

 

image

image

 

 

Which is all very strange, because in their State of the Climate report, in 1998, they showed these numbers:-

 

1998 54.62
1934 54.67

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/ann/ann98.html

 

image

 

So, since 1998, the temperature for 1934 has been reduced by about 0.6F, and 1998’s cut by 0.3F.

 

NCDC will point to all sorts of reasons why their figures have changed. But is not it time that they published the same, simple sort of comparison, as I have done, so that people are aware that the historical numbers they read are not the actual measurements taken at the time, but NCDC’s interpretation of what they think they should have been?

from → Climate Change
9 Comments
  1. Ray permalink
    February 13, 2013 1:50 pm

    George Orwell would be proud of them!
    Expect to see 2012 reduced at some stage, when it is necessary to prove that some year in the future is the warmest on record.

  2. gofer permalink
    February 13, 2013 9:17 pm

    Is there such a thing as margin of error in climate data or are we to believe it can be recorded to such an exact degree?

  3. alex permalink
    February 13, 2013 11:57 pm

    It’s a new kind of temperature I guess. We already have a new kind of rain, so why not a new kind of temperature…. and science?

  4. David permalink
    February 14, 2013 6:05 pm

    Paul,

    Is it possible that that the NOAA adjustments are justified in the scientific literature?

    • Paul Homewood permalink*
      February 14, 2013 6:39 pm

      My complaint is that they are not open about the changes they are making.

      • Andy DC permalink
        February 16, 2013 1:20 am

        We have been determined to be far too stupid to possibly understand these strongly warm biased adjustments concocted by these brilliant climate scientists. After all, they each have 200 IQs and supercomputers that can do trillions of calculations!

  5. E. Beni permalink
    February 21, 2013 2:24 am

    I am a novice at this stuff so bear with me. Regardless of the exact temperature readings or ranges it is almost a forehead slap…DUH!!! It is an upward trend with the last readings probably around the “top’. I understand that the trend since the end of the LIA ~1850 has been +.6C per century arguably explainable by natural cycles. So since ~1850 there has been a somewhat steady rise with some downturns and flat trends with the latest flat trend being since 1997. So I have a flight of 15 stairs in my house. I can climb about 4 steps and then go down one or two….or just march in place on one step. When I get to the top step I can go up/down, up/down, up/down for 16 steps and maybe even take a few steps on the landing. In my feeble mind I can almost guarantee that my last 16 steps were among the top “X’ steps that I took. Am I missing something here??? As we go into a cooling cycle are we going to have to hear that “20 of the last 30 years have been the warmest on record”. AND if they were really accurate why dont they just say their X years have been the top Y warmest of the last several hundred years since medieval times.
    Is this novice just missing something??

Comments are closed.