Skip to content

Booker Reports How NOAA Cool The Past

June 22, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

 

For anyone who has missed it, Booker has picked up on some of the work that Steve Goddard has been doing, highlighting how NOAA has been tampering with temperature data.

 

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

 

 

 

It’s about time this scandal was given the oxygen of publicity.

3 Comments
  1. tom0mason permalink
    June 22, 2014 4:40 pm

    NOAA’s reality is lost in a fog of war of their own making.
    Creating new ‘science facts’ is what the US government is paying for and what NOAA is supplying.

  2. June 23, 2014 2:05 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  3. Frederick Colbourne permalink
    June 24, 2014 3:19 pm

    I do agree with part of this assessment of the temperature data reported by NOAA and your conclusions..

    There was a justification for a one-off adjustment when the method of temperature measurement was changed many years ago. This one-off adjustment was a valid “technical” adjustment. From time to time installations are moved or equipment is modernized. There are many reasons for site-specific and time-specific adjustments.

    But what is happening now is adjustment by “homogenizing algorithm”. And virtually all temperatures are adjusted in order to coerce the data into a standard grid that is not the actual network of meteorological sites.

    The unsatisfactory feature of this approach to presenting the data is that there is a continuous adjustment of historical data based on an algorithm. So the temperature figures for a station in Peoria in July 1930 might change next month from the value reported this month and may be a degree or so cooler than what was report after the technical adjustments have been made.

    The peculiarity that critics object to is that the algorithm tends to make historical temperatures in certain locations cooler than the measured temperatures after the technical adjustments. The critics claim such continuing adjustment of historical temperature data amounts to misrepresentation of actual historical temperatures for the purpose of making modern temperatures appear warmer.

    Anthony Watts, himself a meteorologist and a famous critic of official temperature measurements has pointed out that Steve Goddard has made some technical errors in his analysis and presentation. Specifically, Anthony Watts objects to the term “fabricated”.

    If “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” then unwarranted adjustment of temperature data would smell as foul. So I think you have hit the mark, if not the bulls-eye.

    There is a serious problem in official temperature records, but Steve Goddard may not be as sound an authority in regard to temperature adjustments as he is in other respects.

    There are others who make similar criticisms who may be more reliable and if you cast your net wider, you will find that similar criticisms are made in regard to temperature records in Australia and New Zealand.

    Most of the critics object not to one-off adjustments for purely technical reasons, but to the continually changing figures for certain sites simply to make a standard rectangular grid.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: