Skip to content

Temperature Adjustments In Alabama

January 16, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/ncdc-cooling-the-past-again/

 

I came across an old post of mine from June 2012, which casts some light on how much the US temperature record has been adjusted by NOAA.

The graph plots November temperatures in Alabama. Like all of this old data, this graph is no longer available on NOAA’s website.

As I noted at the time, November temperatures in 1934 were 57.0F, and compared with 55.5F in 2011.

 

If we fast forward to the current version, we find that November 1934 is shown as 55.8F, and November 2011 as 55.3F. In net terms, relative to 2011, the 1934 temperatures have been reduced by 1.0F.

 

multigraph

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/1/0/tavg/1/11/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2013

 

As I also reported in a later post in 2014, NOAA offered a toolkit that graphed the differences between the old and new versions.

Below is a screenprint of the annual data for Alabama, which I posted at the time, and it shows just how much temperatures have been reduced during that highly inconvenient warm period in the 1930s and 40s.

As with the November figure, there is an adjustment of about 1F.

 

25_nebraska00_precipitation_thumb

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/ncdc-introduce-more-temperature-adjustmentsand-guess-which-way-they-go/

 

Now, and also highly conveniently, the NOAA toolkit does not work. All you get is a blank screen.

image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/divisional-comparison/

Advertisements
26 Comments
  1. John Palmer permalink
    January 16, 2018 1:52 pm

    Don’t what you’re worrying about…. the science is settled. Who needs old, raw data!
    The b*****rds!

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 16, 2018 6:40 pm

      Absolutely!

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

      ~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)

      Come on, given the choice between a £10 thermometer and a £100,000,000 computer game climate model, which would YOU believe?

      • Eric Simpson permalink
        January 21, 2018 7:41 am

        “We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

        We also got this gem:

        “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” -David Frame, Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute

  2. quaesoveritas permalink
    January 16, 2018 1:52 pm

    Have NOAA ever justified the reduction in past temperatures and/or the removal of the toolkit?

  3. Eric permalink
    January 16, 2018 1:57 pm

    Fraudsters

  4. Broadlands permalink
    January 16, 2018 2:25 pm

    Paul… I have studied this for several years and have a “ton” of data that will show that NOAA/NCDC has adjusted virtually all of their temperatures in every contiguous US state. Except for California, these adjustments have been both seasonal and almost always down. They claim it represents an “improved algorithm” coupled with new “old” data. If I knew how to post graphics here I could show where this has taken place. My data are complete… comparisons with official US Weather Bureau values for 1921, 1934, 1938 and 1940. Every month, every state.

  5. Keitho permalink
    January 16, 2018 2:31 pm

    This deceitful manipulation of history makes me grind my teeth. We all know it is going on thanks to Paul and others but it still is out there pretending to be actual data rather than politics.

    When you point it out you are a conspiracist who thinks the moon landings were faked. Grrrrr!

  6. January 16, 2018 3:45 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  7. A C Osborn permalink
    January 16, 2018 3:46 pm

    Isn’t it odd how they left 1909 as it was, it is now the highest “old” temperature.

  8. R2Dtoo permalink
    January 16, 2018 4:10 pm

    Why doesn’t the Trump administration simply make the bureaucrats put the older programs back up and let the folks play. If once available, the original data should still be around (archived). A simple one-sentence directive would do it. So easy.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 16, 2018 4:22 pm

      East Anglia CRU has destroyed all of their “raw” data.

      Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

      “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

      • January 17, 2018 8:50 am

        Data storage issues is an absolute lie. People kept paper records for hundreds of years covering all manner of complex fields. Am I seriously supposed to believe that at some time in the 1980s an important department had no such facility and as a result had to destroy all of their raw data? I doubt it was any sort of conspiracy, I favour a departmental cock up.

  9. Tom Anderson permalink
    January 16, 2018 4:42 pm

    I have pointed out on several sites that it is a federal crime, a felony, under Title 18 of the United States Code, section 2071, for the custodian of government records to alter, manipulate, or destroy such records. It would be gratifying if there were some collective demand that the matter be investigated and the perpetrators be appropriately penalized if what is alleged is true.

  10. January 16, 2018 4:58 pm

    “Value-added data…” Only in Climate Science. Back when I was a test engineer developing pressure and flow instruments, if I produced “value-added” data I would have been fired. Or worse.

  11. Bitter@twisted permalink
    January 16, 2018 5:15 pm

    There is a word to describe such post-hoc changes.
    It is called “fraud”.

  12. January 16, 2018 5:25 pm

    A lawsuit against NOAA and NASA for destruction of government property might get some attention thrown on this scandal.

    “Red Team/Blue Team” ought to be looking into this data bastardization as one of the first things they do.

    • J Martin permalink
      January 16, 2018 7:56 pm

      A sensible law, but I doubt any prosecutions have ever been brought especially under the Obama administration. Perhaps NOAAs illegal activities should be brought to the attention of the Heartland institute or maybe Scott Pruitt at the EPA.

  13. Reasonable Skeptic permalink
    January 16, 2018 5:45 pm

    ….sarcasm set to high…

    I am always amazed how the homogenization process proves global warming is real and that previous scientists that created global temperatures were complete idiots.

  14. Stonyground permalink
    January 16, 2018 5:59 pm

    Keitho:
    “When you point it out you are a conspiracist who thinks the moon landings were faked.”

    I think that this is the reason why it has been possible to do these adjustments in plain sight without any consequences. Anyone who has drawn attention to it has simply been labelled a denier and for the true believers that is enough. If you are a denier then you are obviously either a crackpot or in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

    I’m prepared to believe that it may be possible that some old data could be flawed and that enough is known about why that is for it to be possible to make adjustments that would make them more accurate in practical terms. However, I find it pretty hard to believe that such inaccuracies are only ever present in one direction only.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 16, 2018 8:12 pm

      Yes, it is very hard to believe that the “corrections” for older data resulted in lowered temperatures almost every time. raised temperatures are rare (in the US data)

      And, it’s not just with US land surface temperatures. NOAA has “corrected/adjusted” many of their ENSO 3.4 ONI values. But what’s most interesting is that they are only for 20th century values. All others, from 1999 back to 1950 have stayed the same. When questioned about that, twice? No reply. Amazing.

      http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

      You won’t be able to see that now, but I kept “screen dumps” that will prove it.

  15. Broadlands permalink
    January 16, 2018 9:29 pm

    The temperature and other meteorological data for Alabama in November of 1934 can be seen here:

    ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-11-0426.pdf

    The mean temperature was 57.6°F. The current NOAA November value for 1934: 55.8°F, a lowering of 1.8°F. For the entire year, November was the largest monthly departure from the US Weather Bureau values, July the least. And these values have been adjusted more than once.

  16. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    January 16, 2018 10:48 pm

    In Australia, we are gearing up to examine not only the sign of past adjustments, but also magnitude and duration. Maybe also their time separation from the middle years in case the early and late adjustments have more lever weight. The Acorn data set has over 100 stations and there are adjustments to almost every one, some accumulating up to 3 or 4 deg C.
    There will one day be an open national or global investigation of adjustments and their effects on telling people that there is alarming global warming, We will all need such exercises in that sort of detail for our countries in order to be convincing.
    That is more productive than sitting back and crying f r a u d. Geoff

  17. A C Osborn permalink
    January 17, 2018 7:34 pm

    The biggest indicator of what NASA & NOAA have done is in there own 1998 report for 1997 Annual Report which shows the Global Temperature as 62.45F (16.92C)
    The current 2016 report shows 1997 now as being 58.13F (14.53C).
    They blame the change on a change of Baseline, except the 1998 report says the 62.45F was the Temperature ie not an Anomaly.

    By the way this 1998 Report for 1997 will drop off the bottom of the list of available reports tis year, thus the Evidence will diappear.

    • Keitho permalink
      January 17, 2018 7:41 pm

      Well spotted. These adjustments are scandalous and surely at some point they will be reversed and the truth will out. Maybe I am just a Boy Scout but I believe it.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 18, 2018 2:56 am

      And Yes.. NOAA’s Dr. Karl was quoted in the news about that record high.

      https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/124200554/

      Baseline changes don’t change the measured temperatures, do they?

  18. Broadlands permalink
    January 18, 2018 3:03 am

    In case you cannot read the article… Here is what was reported:

    “We need a national consensus to do something on global warming,” Clinton said. “It is significant and what we need is an understanding that we can grow- the economy and still preserve the environment” Karl said the Earth’s average temperature last year was three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit above normal. Normal is 61.7 degrees, the average for the years 1961-1990. The 1997 reading tops the previous warmest year, 1990, by 0.15 of a degree.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: