NOAA propagandists say every month that temperatures have been “above normal” for blah blah blah months in a row.
Actually, they have been cheating by adjusting temperatures increasingly upwards for 840 months in a row.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
The entire trend is due to NOAA and GISS manipulating the temperature record. There was no warming in the US before GISS/NOAA started cheating in the year 2000.
But their funding depends on it, so they continue.
What I find interesting about this sort of behaviour is that Richard Lindzen has speculated that the missing hot spot cannot be found due to surface adjustments messing up the trends. When you cheat (or if you prefer, let confirmation bias get the better of you), there are consequences.
This Cheating will catch up to them when amist their Claims of Continued Above Normal Temps, its Colder than Normal all over the US Most of the Time! Unable to explain this away That is when all NOAA’s Crediblity will Be Gone!!!
Why do you think there funding depends on it? What difference would either flat or cooling temps make? These things would be recorded anyway.
@Laz: Funding of research at the univeristy level is very much at the mercy of political trends, seeing as how it is funded by government. When I did my 4th year thesis, I was looking at the feeding rates of Bythotrephes cederstroemi which is an invader species in the Great Lakes basin. Along with the Zebra mussel and others, invader species was THE thing in aquatic ecology research in the mid-1990s. When I went back to visit my supervisor a few years later, he was no longer doing any research on Bythotrephes … the funding for that had stopped (apparently invader species was no longer trendy). As long as climate change is trendy in political circles, it will continue to be funded … until someting else more trendy/scary comes along, and the funding for climate change research will dry up and go elsewhere.
But these measurement are taken and would be taken regardless of research grants.
Yes, but if the measurements are being adjusted to show something that they should not be, all the more ammunition for governments to keep shovelling money into the climate research sector. Governments will fund ANYTHING they think will get them votes and/or good publicity. As long as climate change is trendy, it will keep getting tax dollars.
Why would any Government expect to get votes by funding something that could end up causing extra taxation?
Because all the Liberals and Eco Terrorist who help vote in those currently in Power expect those they Supported in Government to keep Environmental Activism well Funded, As long as the Data continues to show Warming and in turn damage to the Planet, these Activist can promote their Green Agenda to gain control over many aspects of our Lives! Example: The EPA could not enact Carbon Regulations if the Data coming from these Government Funded Scientist did not continue to show Warming! So Data that is showing either Flat Temps or Cooling would undermine their Environmental Arguments and would put their Funding in Jeopardy! It also would Undermine the Implementation of Agenda 21! Don’t Know what it is…Look it Up!!!!
@Laz: You can’t be serious … don’t you know that government funding of ANYTHING causes extra taxation?! However, too many people in the general public only see the optics of it. That is, the government is providing money for climate reserach, or welfare, or affordable housing; ergo, they are “compassionate”, “progressive”, etc. They don’t see that they are being bribed with their own tax dollars.
Yes I do know that government funding things can cause taxation. What I have never see is any Government needing any excuse to raises taxes. They have more than enough options without funding science that you seem to think flawed to tax people. You have already listed some that don’t require any ‘fraud’.
@Laz: This isn’t just about raising taxes … it is about getting votes. Governments will do whatever gets votes, whether it is targeting a certain group with some sort of “goody” (ie: government program), or funding research in an area that is trendy (ie: climate change). Either way, getting votes in this manner is essentially buying votes … and that requires tax revenue. With western governments facing a growing debt crisis, cuts in spending are going to have to come at some point. Eventually, cuts to scientific research will have to come as well. Cuts to climate change reserach would be a lot easier to make from a polticial standpoint if organizations like NOAA didn’t adjust temperatures, as the results would then show that it is cooler now than it was in the 1930′s, not warmer.
Does what you have said in your comment really make sense to you?
Do you believe that successive governments over decades funded flawed science and are now paying people to commit fraud by altering data to tweet a graph in the chance that this will ‘buy’ them votes?
Don’t you think opposition parities and politicians might get a lot more votes a lot easier by exposing this? Don’t you not think other nations and regimes wouldn’t use their own scientists and records to expose it and gain an advantage in global politics? Simpler still, don’t you think governments could better archive vote buying by not funding this for generations, but giving tax breaks or similar instead?
@Laz: “Do you believe that successive governments over decades funded flawed science and are now paying people to commit fraud by altering data …”
1) No. Governments are funding the research regardless of the fraud. They don’t care whether the data is fraudulant; all they care about is the fact that the research is being funded. I once watched an interview with Thomas Sowell. In the interview, he mentioned that as a young man he used to be a Marxist … that is, until he worked in government. It didn’t matter what program a bureaucracy was funding … none of them cared whether the program made a difference. None of them actually kept empirical data to see if the program was making a difference. All that mattered to them was that the funding kept flowing and the program kept running. In the case of climate change, governments couldn’t care less if the data is fraudulant; as long as the public thinks they are doing the right thing by funding climate research, it will keep getting funding.
“Don’t you think opposition parities and politicians might get a lot more votes a lot easier by exposing this?”
2) As long as the MSM keeps calling out politicians who object to it as “deniers”, you can bet most opposition politicians won’t touch the issue. Just look at the U.S. … any politician who dares to question the climate change orthodoxy is essentially labeled as being bat-shit crazy.
You reasoning gets further and further away from anything that needs evidence to support it. Just because you ‘once watched an interview’ is not evidence that successive governments don’t care what they fund. Why has the opposition parties or other countries government not taken advantage of this?
There is another possible conclusion for your view that ‘any politician who dares to question the climate change orthodoxy is essentially labeled as being bat-shit crazy’, – that they are.
ah, yes…
The infamous 1962 tipping point. All (thermal) history revolves around that point.
I seriously look forward to the days when its beyond doubt to everyone its a lot cooler.
aussies are waking up, even the sheepies..some..rather cool summer while the agitprops keep trying to tell us we are hot..isnt working so well anymore:-)
the upcoming Carbon Taxes and the slowly dawning cost hikes to many businesses as well as individuals lives is starting to hit home..
better late then before they manage to start it going.
the aus govt is so close to getting a desperately needed double dissolution as of todays/yesterdays scandals( see P slipper)
if that happens the the Lib/nats get in by massive votes and we are saved:-)
The Gif is an indictment.
I have been long puzzled why more is not made about these adjustments. It is simple to use this to prove fraud to the average person. Everybody recognizes that the UHI effect results in temperatures in the cities being several degrees warmer that nearby areas. For example, as I type, the temperature in a small rural airport in Lake Elmo, MN is 59°F vs. 63°F at the MSP airport 27 miles away. This is 4 degrees of UHI effect and this difference did not occur 150 years ago. Since the world wide population has grown by a large amount over the same time, and the thermometers have been near people, the UHI effect on temperature measurements has grown over time. It the temperatures had been perfectly constant the UHI effect would have caused an apparent warming.
Any honest correction to the temperature record would need to show a negative slope. Just compare world population here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png
to the fraudulent correction curve above.
“It is simple to use this to prove fraud to the average person.”
One would think.
I say ” Historical data has been altered”
They say “Show me”
I show
Rarely can the hard-core catstrophic types be convinced that the Gif shows
the alteration of history.,
I end up frustrated.
I am mildly surprised that these adjustments have never been challenged in the US. Skeptics in NZ challenged their adjustments in court and won. The adjustments showing NZ had warmed by 1C could not be defended and nearly all the warming had to be rolled back. Before that happened skeptics were called every name under the sun but the adjustments turned out to be indefensible. Worth googling…
I have googled but can’t find any link with a verdict on any court case. I did find this which I assume is the court case your are referring too;
http://pundit.co.nz/content/i-dont-know-this-law-it-probably-exists-only-in-your-heads
Do you have a link to the outcome of this court case where the NZ skeptics won?
Good place to start here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/21/new-new-zealand-temperature-records-no-warming.html
Not sure why you had trouble, I found useful links in seconds…
I had trouble finding it because I couldn’t and still can’t find any reference to where your claims winning are, including the link you just supplied.
I had another look and I still don’t know exactly the whole story but as far as I can tell the court case that you said is won is still isn’t settled. According to the NIWA site; “The court action is ongoing, and NIWA is confidently defending its science.”
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review
But what your link and the subsequent link to the full story shows is that the The Australian Bureau of Meteorology who peer reviewed the NIWA’s adjustments supported the corrections made, but your link plays this down by claiming it wasn’t a proper endorsement.
What I do know is, if the peer review, this courts case or anything else made the NIWA alter its graph, the ‘Seven-station’ series temperature data is still on it’s web site and still showing ‘NZ’s average annual temperature has increased by about 1 °C over the past 100 years.’
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data
So given that the case still isn’t settled, that the corrections have been peer reviewed and supported and that the information is still being used to display a graph showing the same amount of warming, I am at a loss how you have found links show ‘Skeptics in NZ challenged their adjustments in court and won’. Do you actually have any evidence of this?
You seem to want to play word games rather than deal in facts. This type of argumentation is a form of verbal masturbation I have little time for. If you want to discuss these matters seriously, I’m happy to help you. Otherwise…
If you don’t think NIWA tossing out .7C of warming for NZ out of a total of 1C originally claimed, by backing away from their original adjustments, isn’t a win for sceptics, then of course you’re playing the fool.
Will Nitschke says:
“This type of argumentation is a form of verbal masturbation I have little time for.”
Wow, where did that come from?
You are the one making a claim that ‘Skeptics in NZ challenged their adjustments in court and won’. But it seems that neither you nor I can actually provide credible evidence that this is actually true. A real sceptic would be grateful to have their position challenged and change it according to available evidence. A moral one would apologise for misleading others and try to correct that. You resort to childish name calling.
If you can provide evidence of a court judgement that shows ‘Skeptics in NZ challenged their adjustments in court and won’ do so, otherwise it is you that, as you so immaturely put it, is the one involved in forms of masturbation.
Also worth googling is anything on trends in glacier mass balance in NZ,or elsewhere for that matter. You can see the shocking knock-on effects of temperature data ‘adjustment’.
Why are marked differences found for recent years in this case in view of the GISS antics, where adjustments are being made to temperatures 40-70 years ago? (In other words, I would have expected the curve to be negative on the left-hand side rather than positive on the right.)
Patriotsrn1, April 22, 2012 at 11:13 pm.
Their credibility was gone long ago. Now they are the convenient butt for jokes such as Richard Lindzen’s:
“In Climate Science we can’t even predict the past”.
When GISS adopted the new Version3 in mid-January, that actually increased US temperatures by another +0.19C in 2011 on top of what has already been done (among changes in other years as well).
Compared to earlier versions of the data, it looks like US temperatures have been adjusted up by about +0.612C now. Now you have to be tracking it over long periods of time to see all the different versions.
It’s a Vicious Cycle…Whenever the Data comes in that doesn’t supporter their Claims of Warming AKA Climate Change or Anthropic Global Warming or whatever they call it next, they just design and then adopt a New Program that Adjust the DATA over Time to Fit their Clams! In the Financial World this is Called COOKING THE BOOKS!!! They also do this in the Federal Government to make it look like the Unemployment Numbers are Dropping when in Reality they Just Stopped Counting a Large Number of Unemployed Workers who have given up!!!!
No warming? Seriously? Were you even IN America this past winter? You know, the winter with record low snowfall in the breadbasket states? Or perhaps the 80 degree days in March got overlooked somehow? Stick your head in the sand if you like, but what is happening is pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks.
Tell the People of Alaska, Northern Canada, Europe all the way down to Rome Italy.. other place around the World that this was a WARM Winter! You are using Tunnel Vision to make a Claim that we are the ones “Sticking our heads in the sand” to ignore the evidence! You are the one who does not understand how weather works and why this past winter was so warm here in the US! We had an Abnormally Warm Winter over all here in the Lower 48 because the normal transport of Arctic Air was block most of the Winter Months by a long Term Zonal Flow of the Northern Jet Stream! This Jet Stream often set up well into Canada and it seldom had any Big Troughs or Ridges develop that would cause any major changes to this stagnate Weather pattern! This also help the Arctic Air Masses to continue to get colder and colder then it would release in those areas elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere that had very cold and snowy Winter! Not to mention how La Nina and El Nino effects our Winter Time Weather in North America?
“GaryP says:
April 24, 2012 at 12:48 am
I have been long puzzled why more is not made about these adjustments. It is simple to use this to prove fraud to the average person. ”
it’s simple.
1. the chart that steve shows about the USHCN adjustments is ancient. Very simply, it refers to a version of USHCN that is not even used anymore. ie v1
2. Even in that old version of USHCN the vast majority of the adjustment was made for changes in time of observation.
a) the adjustment has been validated with two seperate empirical studies
b) the adjustment has been validated by skeptics long ago who tried to
find fault with it but could not ( see john Daly’s old site or see the discussions
on CA.
c) the adjustment code is available. A few of us have looked at it and there is
nothing wrong with it.
d. Independent methods ( suggested by skeptics ) have been applied to the data
and they come up with the same answer, further justifying the adjustment.
So, just for historical accuracy, long ago ( like 5 years ) a few of us, myself included, posted that Ushcn v1 chart. Then we started to look into the adjustments, adjustment code, and found that the adjustment is required and is done correctly.
Of course, none of this stops people from saying all manner of silly things.
The code is there. the raw data is there. When you’ve spent time looking at it you might have something interesting to say
Steve,
Please provide links to the places where CA endorses Hansen’s adjustment regime. Also where UHI is properly addressed. (Since this seems to be the major sceptical bug bear.) I see a lot of spin in your post, but I would prefer links rather than just your opinions.
As Mosher has noted, the adjustments have been claimed to be valid.
But what changed in 2011 so that its temperatures needed to be adjusted upwards by 0.19C. Its not like the Time of Observation bias is still affecting temperatures in 2011.
The adjustments are clearly done to increase the trend.
We need a complete raw data audit done of the NCDC by real statisticians.
“Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.”
“Given the amount of work NOAA has put into the USHCN dataset to increase the agreement between neighboring stations, I don’t have an explanation for this result. I have to wonder whether their adjustment procedures added more spurious effects than they removed, at least as far as their impact on temperature trends goes.
And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/