Skip to content

NOAA’s Fabricated “Record Temperatures”

November 21, 2015

By Paul Homewood  

 

201510

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201510.gif

 

NOAA inform us that last month was another “hottest evah”.

 

Note how a huge swathe of South America has been labelled as “record warmest”. And what is this based on?

 

 

201510

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201510.gif

 

In fact, there is virtually no temperature data available at all for that particular area, including nearly all of Brazil.

The so-called record temperatures in Brazil and neighbouring countries are pure fabrication. 

  

Note also the red splurge across Greenland, which apparently has no data. However, NOAA themselves show that this supposed warmth in Greenland is a lie.

They show the atmospheric anomalies and state:

 

In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth’s surface.

 

According to this, most of Greenland and Northern Canada is much colder than usual.

 

 

201510

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/hgtanomaly-global/201510.gif

 

Meanwhile, the much more accurate and comprehensive satellites show current warmth well below previous El Nino peaks in 1998 and 2010, and a declining trend. 

 

trend

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

36 Comments leave one →
  1. November 21, 2015 3:51 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. November 21, 2015 4:49 pm

    Saw this in the Washington Post:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/10/supplemental/page-2

    The graph looks very odd—one year consistently above all the others? I mean way above. Coincidently in a year with a Climate Summit upcoming. If I were a suspicious person, I’d think maybe there had been some modifications to the data to help prove the theory.

    • DMA permalink
      November 21, 2015 6:28 pm

      Good catch and further proof of fiddling with numbers but still less than .02C so even the fraudulent line is not scary.

    • Curious George permalink
      November 21, 2015 9:48 pm

      Never argue with a peer-reviewed Washington Post.

      • November 22, 2015 3:40 pm

        This was in the Washngton Post, not peer-reviewed by them. The data was from NOAA.

  3. November 21, 2015 5:11 pm

    They seem to be basing a lot of land temperatures, on ocean data.
    Unfortunately I can’t find a link to the ocean only map.
    It seems to be harder to find than it used to be.
    Logically, the following should work, but it doesn’t.

    • November 21, 2015 5:13 pm

      Drat, it doesn’t display.
      If was the land map link. with “land” replaced with “ocean”.

  4. November 21, 2015 5:53 pm

    Paul, some time ago I recall a group of suitably qualified persons was reviewing global temperature data sets to expose this fraud. I think Lord Monckton was involved. Any word on this? Are your discoveries and the discoveries of others being aggregated?

  5. mwhite permalink
    November 21, 2015 6:11 pm

    I’m led to believe NOAAs most accurate record.

  6. November 21, 2015 10:12 pm

    Thanks, Paul. You present clear proof that NOAA manufactures man-made global warming, and this is not redundant.
    The satellites do a much better job of measuring global temperatures than the scarce land-based thermometers.

    • November 22, 2015 3:43 pm

      NOAA says:
      “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
      The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

      However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships – 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all – to determine the global temperature record.”

      Translation: NOAA uses temperatures where it’s not much work to get to the information and that is good enough for them. It should be good enough for them (and they really don’t use the buoys—those don’t show warming as noted by Karl).

  7. Mervyn permalink
    November 22, 2015 2:32 am

    The way US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is openly pushing to silence ‘climate change deniers’, does it not make sense that the Obama administration would also be resorting to surface temperature data manipulation? Actually, manipulation is not the word. It’s FRAUD!

    • November 22, 2015 3:44 pm

      It’s beyond “fudge factors” here, yet global warming scientists keep right on trying to convince people of how noble and honest they are and why would they lie? I think people are starting to figure out why.

  8. November 22, 2015 3:35 am

    If you wear your tin foil hats, maybe the Obama thought police won’t be able to get to you.

    • November 22, 2015 3:04 pm

      Come on. Everyone knows when Al Gore invented the internet he also invented a device that would bypass the tin foil hats.

  9. November 22, 2015 3:37 am

    The upcoming Paris Conference on AGW may be the last act in a 70-year effort (1945-2015) to hide the fact that the force in cores of uranium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 AUG 1945 is the force in the core of the Sun that:

    1. Made our chemical elements
    2. Birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago
    3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after ~3.8 Ga ago
    4. Still sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system today, . . .

    as Prof. Kuroda realized, standing in the ashes of Hiroshima in AUG 1945.

    Frighten world leaders’ effort to hide the force of NEUTRON REPULSION failed; The number of nuclear nations grew from 3: USA, Japan, USSR in 1945 to 15: China, England, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, United States in 2015.

    This increased the chance an unintended nuclear exchange might destroy modern society. Leaders of the 15 nuclear nations stay in contact about solar storms and eruptions – like the Carrington event that engulfed the whole Earth in September 1859 – because the signal from a solar eruption could be mistaken for a sneak nuclear attack and trigger retaliatory launches of nuclear weapons worldwide.
    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8370.html

    • November 22, 2015 3:42 am

      Aston warned at the end of his 1922 Nobel Lecture that an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction might change Earth into a star:

      http://veksler.jinr.ru/becquerel/text/books/aston-lecture.pdf

      • November 22, 2015 4:06 am

        The best policy for a closing scene would be a frank admission that world leaders have no control, and no way to predict, the future for a planet orbiting 1 AU from the pulsar that made and sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system.

  10. Peter permalink
    November 22, 2015 7:25 am

    I am puzzled by the Australia map. Sure, it’s hot some days, but I live in the subtropics, it’s always hot this time of year. It’s cool at night, I need a blanket, and it’s not as hot as last year. It’s coldest winter I’ve experienced in years! The in-laws were getting frosts killing the garden, and they live on the Tropic of Capricorn.
    Same with rain. My local area is normally brown with dead vegetation this time of year. Sure, we have not had as much rain as the last few years, but central and south east Queensland is green! 6 or so years of rain this time of year is unheard of. Yet, all I hear about is drought. It’s not every year we get a wet season.
    I’d question my sanity, if there wasn’t a climate conference coming up.

    • November 22, 2015 3:09 pm

      This is something I have also pondered. If most reporting stations on land show some of the coldest weather ever, it has to be ocean temperatures that are making the “average” go up. How much? Considering how many “coldest month ever (since records were kept)” have occurred with more and more frequency, there are either way more ocean temperature measurements, real or fabricated, that show immense warming or someone is playing fast and loose with numbers here. There have been four to five years of extreme cold and snow, yet the globe gets hotter. My science-self says “wait a minute”…….

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    November 22, 2015 11:44 am

    Interesting to compare Tony Heller’s take on this to Paul’s.

    Look at Greenland on Tony’s ‘land only’ image. (link below) It’s all grey, showing no temperatures at all never mind any above average temperatures.

    Then compare to Paul’s ‘land and sea’ image shown above, which shows almost all the bottom half of Greenland as being either ‘warmer’ or ‘much warmer’ than average!

    So when they want to show ‘hotter’ they have land in their land and sea data, but when they don’t want to show cooling they don’t have any land data!

    http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/why-nasa-and-noaa-made-greenland-disappear/

    • November 22, 2015 12:08 pm

      I still don’t understand how they can have land & sea data, on Greenland itself, without any land data!

      • CheshireRed permalink
        November 22, 2015 12:51 pm

        Quite! The answer would appear to be they DO have land data on Greenland, but as Tony Heller explains they refuse to show it because it’s showing cooling. Amazingly they claim they DO have data when they want to show warming. They’ve contradicted themselves nicely there.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        November 22, 2015 11:44 pm

        They use a statistical technique called “Krigging”, originally invented in South Africa during the gold rush days to “interpolate” claim data so as to con the unwary into buying effectively worthless real estate.

        A better name would be “making stuff up”.

  12. November 22, 2015 1:10 pm

    I am not so sure.
    They seem to be deriving the land data from the ocean data somehow.
    Unfortunately the ocean data map doesn’t seem to be available.

  13. November 22, 2015 3:48 pm

    Also interesting: “For a station to be considered for any parameter, it must have a minimum of 30 years of data with more than 182 days complete each year. This is effectively a “30-year record of service” requirement, but allows for inclusion of some stations which routinely shut down during certain seasons.”
    So a full one-half of the year can be missing from the data and it still counts.

  14. November 23, 2015 2:08 am

    Reducing the stations used offers some pretty neat advantages. Since there is a lot of area but only a few stations “infilling” becomes necessary, meaning assigning the surviving station’s temperature to a large area. Just choose the urban stations to get the Urban Heat Island increase and the low elevation stations to get adiabatic warming effects. Pretty simple, and if one is the “controlling legal authority”, pretty easy too.
    Liars lie folks, it is what they do. Remember “if you like your doctor (or plan, or hospital) you can keep your doctor”.

  15. November 23, 2015 8:29 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  16. Vrig permalink
    November 23, 2015 2:23 pm

    I ran across this paper a few months ago, “Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature.” from MIT open access. Final manuscript was 5/2015 and from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PSMDI), Lead author B Santer from Lawrence Livermore, with coauthors from RSS, MIT, NASA-GISS and Canadian center for climate Modeling. The goal of the paper was to try and get a better model response of global temperature by removing natural warming and cooling from volcanic activity and ENSO. Some comments from this group that got my attention:

    1) “Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures show slower warming since1998. Possible explanations for this “warming hiatus” include internal climate variability, external cooling influences, and observational errors”
    2)”We show that climate model simulations without early 21st century volcanic forcing overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998″
    3) “Our analysis uses satellite measurements of changes in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) made by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites13,14. Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast, global-mean trends estimated from surface thermometer records can be biased by spatially- and temporally non-random coverage changes”

    I find it interesting that this group, including NASA-GISS essentially admits satellite measurements are less biased than land based thermometers. They also recognize the “pause” in warming.

    The authors go on to remove the volcanic cooling from the satellite record as well as the ENSO warming. “We remove ENSO effects from the satellite data and CMIP-5 simulations with an iterative regression-based method, which accounts for correlation between the predictor variables used to estimate ENSO and volcano temperature signals”.

    Their conclusion below:
    “In conclusion, we note that systematic forcing errors in CMIP-5 simulations of historical climate change are not confined to the treatment of volcanic aerosols. Errors are also likely to exist in the treatment of recent changes in solar irradiance9, stratospheric water vapor10, stratospheric ozone29,30, and anthropogenic aerosols11. Even a hypothetical ‘perfect’ climate model, with perfect representation of all the important physics operating in the real-world climate system, will fail to capture the observed evolution of climate change if key anthropogenic and natural forcings are neglected or inaccurately represented.”

    What really got my attention was a chart on Page 22 (Figure 1). The top graph A shows UAH & RSS data compared to CMIP5 model average which overestimates warming. The middle graph B removes ENSO, and final graph C goes on to remove volcanic events, El Chichon and Pinatubo. Graph C shows that the CMIP5 models continues to overestimate warming, however by a lesser amount than graph A. What really caught my attention was the satellite data in graph C (with ENSO & volcanic activity removed) shows little to no warming since 1993. They also admit errors are likely to exist in how other important factors are modeled.

    To my eye this is very significant but I am not a climate modeler. So am I missing something here?

    Below is a link to the article download page.

    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054

Trackbacks

  1. NOAA’s fabricated ‘record temperatures’ | JunkScience.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: