From: eric on
NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are
Warmest on Record
From: O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Obambi walks on oil now. . . on
On Jul 15, 8:28 pm, eric <warth...(a)> wrote:
> NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are
> Warmest on Record

It's summer.

From: Polarhound on

How do they arrive at the numbers?

There is a major problem with the NASA and NOAA numbers, according to
skeptical researchers who have dissected the data: They are inaccurate,
the result of cherry-picking, computer manipulation and �best guess�

The agency kitchens have concocted warming global temperatures using a
hard-to-follow recipe of thinning reporting stations, grid-box
interpolation, temperature homogenization, and algorithmic ingredients
blended into a tweak-on-the-fly computer program.

Veteran meteorologist Joe D�Aleo � a long-time critic of official
global-warming statistics � says NASA and NOAA are manipulating the
data, calling their actions the U.S. version of last year�s Climategate

The Climategate brouhaha ensued when thousands of hacked (or
whistleblower) e-mails were uploaded last November to the Web from
Britain�s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia and seen by
millions of fascinated snoops. The revealing missives exposed scientific
misconduct by top climate scientists and researchers, several of whom
are now under investigation in Britain and the United States.

�The CRU has been ground zero for alleged scientific conduct, but other
national weather centers, organizations, universities, and the U.S.
global data centers at NOAA and NASA are complicit in the
misrepresentation or manipulation of data to support the supposed
[global warming] consensus,� says D�Aleo, who also heads ICECAP, the
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.

What warming?

NASA and NOAA have several data-manipulation tricks in their global
warming cookbook. But before eyeballing their recipe, here are few
inconvenient truths that failed to make their way into the NASA and NOAA
press releases.

* According to D�Aleo: �Global temperatures peaked in late 1990s,
leveled off, and have been declining since 2001. All four official
databases � NOAA�s NCDC, Hadley CRU, University of Alabama at Birmingham
(UAH), and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) � confirm the decline.�
* Satellite data and land-ocean data sets are diverging. Last year,
NOAA announced that June global temperatures ranked the second-warmest
in 130 years, while the two satellite data sources -- UAH and RSS
--ranked the month's temperatures the 15th and 14th coldest,
respectively, in 31 years of record-keeping.
* In 2009, all regions of the United States were normal or below
normal except for the Southwest and Florida, according to the NCDC.
* The annual temperature in 2008 was the coolest since 1997,
according to NOAA.
* Thirty-eight of 50 states set their all-time record temperatures
in the decades prior to 1960.
* According to the NCDC, 1936 experienced the hottest overall
summer on record in the continental United States. In fact, out of 50
states, 22 recorded their all-time high temperature during the 1930s.
* The 2000s had the most benign weather, in terms of records (heat
and cold), of any decade since the 1880s.
* According to the Danish Meteorological Institute, arctic
temperatures are currently below minus 31.27 degrees, more than five
degrees below normal and the lowest since 2004.
* Last year, Chicago experienced its coolest July 8 in 118 years,
and only four days during the summer reached the 90s. Six states
experienced their coldest-ever July in 115 years, four the second
coldest and two the third coldest. October was the third coldest and
December the 14th coldest in the United States in 115 years.
* Global warming and cooling are cyclical. Data show it warmed from
1920 to 1940 and again from 1979 to 1998. But temperatures cooled from
1940 to the late 1970s, and have been cooling since 2001. Since World
War II, CO2 has risen, even as temperatures have cooled, warmed and then
cooled again, undermining the theory that CO2 is the single most
important cause of climate change.
* Not a single official computer model predicted the recent decline
(since 2001) in global temperatures. Yet extended projections from the
same models are referenced by eco-alarmists demanding draconian
CO2-emission controls and the imposition of carbon taxes and
cap-and-trade restrictions.

The NASA/NOAA recipe

To cook temperature data and warm the earth artificially, NASA and NOAA
have whipped up a nifty recipe. Here are the not-so-secret ingredients
for global warming:

1) Reduce temperature reporting stations across the globe from nearly
6,000 in 1970 to 1,500 or less today.

2) Drop out reporting stations in higher latitudes (colder), higher
elevations (colder) and mainly rural locations (colder).

3) Cool early temperature records through data �adjustments� to create
the impression of a current warming trend.

4) Fail to compensate or under-compensate for urban growth and land-use
changes that can produce localized warming known as the urban heat
island (UHI) effect.

5) Cherry-pick thermometers from reporting stations sited at busy
airports and other warm locales (e.g. near the coast or at lower

6) Fill gaps in the shrunk-down thermometer network by estimating
temperatures using a system of global grid boxes. Then �populate� the
grids with thermometers stationed at lower latitudes and altitudes, or
near the coast and in other warm spots.

7) If there are no temperature stations inside the grid box, use the
closest station in a nearby box (for example, at the bottom of a
mountain plateau or on the coast).

8) Adjust the final temperature dataset using �homogenization,� a
blending process that effectively spreads a warm bias to all surrounding

9) Voila, global warming made easy!

Another bumper cherry-picking season

With global temperatures on the decline, NOAA and NASA are forced to
cherry-pick temperature data to craft their annual �man is warming the
earth� press releases warning of a coming climate catastrophe.

For example:

* NOAA collects data from only 35 sites in Canada, down from 600 in
the 1970s. And only one station � in relatively warm Eureka on Ellesmere
Island � measures temperature for all Canadian territory above the
Arctic Circle.(The Environment Canada weather service recently told the
National Post that it has 1,400 stations, including 100 north of the
arctic circle.) The remainder of the thermometers are sited in warmer,
lower-latitude locations � close to airports and major cities, or near
the coast.
* After 1990, NOAA tripled the number of Canadian reporting
stations at lower elevations while reducing by half the number at
elevations above 300 feet.
* According to D'Aleo, �High-elevation stations have disappeared
from the database. Stations in the Andes and Bolivia have vanished.
Temperatures for those areas are now determined by �interpolation� from
stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.�
* In Russia, Moscow�s Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has
accused Hadley CRU of data tampering. Only 25 percent of the country�s
reporting stations were included in the agency's global temperature
calculations. (The same pruned dataset was used by NOAA.) According to
the IEA, the temperature stations that were removed often show no
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

Elevated temperatures in urban areas
Many of NOAA's temperature stations are located in urban areas,
particularly busy airports, where the surrounding infrastructure often
contaminates readings. Asphalt parking lots, roads, rooftops, sidewalks,
buildings, and air conditioning vents and other radiant heat sources
produce the well-documented UHI effect and can "bias thermometer
readings upwards by as much as 7� C (12� F),� according to a study by

Dr. Phil Klotzbach, a research scientist in Colorado State University�s
Department of Atmospheric Science, says the surface temperatures in many
urban areas are �not representative of global temperatures as much as
they are of the microclimate in those locations.�

There is a �divergence� between temperatures trends observed at surface
stations and those recorded by satellite in the lower troposphere, he says.

�We�re seeing more of a warm bias in the higher latitudes and over land
vs. oceans [in the surface station data]. My general impression is to
trust the satellite data vs. the surface data because there are fewer
variables that come into play.�

Improper siting

Many of the surface temperature stations are improperly sited. A group
of volunteers, working with, have surveyed stations
across the United States and found that 87 percent of the 1,221
instrument stations are �poorly� or �very poorly� sited and only 10
percent meet NOAA�s Climate Reference Network (CRN) and Cooperative
Observer Program (COOP) standards.

The improper siting and UHI effect result �in a warm bias of over 1
degree centigrade, D�Aleo says. �A warm contamination of up to 50
percent has been shown by not less than a dozen peer review papers,
including, ironically, one by Tom Karl (1988), director of NOAA�s NCDC,
and another by CRU�s Phil Jones (2009).�

Anthony Watts of says the U.S. temperature record
can't be trusted. �And since the U.S. record is thought to be �the best
in the world,� it follows that the global database is likely similarly
compromised and unreliable,� he concludes.

Temperature database a mess

Michael Smith, a California-based software engineer, who was
instrumental, along with D'Aleo, in crunching the NOAA/NASA data and
exposing the temperature tampering, says the historical climate data
used by both agencies is obsolete by 20 years and is a mess.

�The ongoing maintenance of the data has been botched. The result is a
structural deficit that makes it wholly unsuited to use in climate
analysis,� he says. �The warming isn�t global and isn�t from CO2. It�s
because we�re using thermometers at airports and in the tropics. An
extraordinary hatred of mountains and other cold locations shows up in
the data.�

Smith, who conducts his own research and receives no outside funding,
says he is interested only in determining the accuracy of the official
data -- before and after it has been adjusted and "homogenized."

�I don�t bring my own fantasies to the table . . . I�m not trying to
tease something out of the data.�

The same unbiased, scientific approach appears to be AWOL at NASA and
NOAA, where both agencies clearly seem intent on fiddling temperature
data to make it support pre-ordained conclusions. What could be the
motivating impulse behind such sleight of hand?

�Bright people have an amazing capacity to deceive themselves,� answers
Smith. �Maybe it�s not done out of malice. Maybe these people actually
believe their own B.S.�

Global warming claims not credible

In their just-published research paper, �Surface Temperature Records:
Policy Driven Deception,� authors D�Aleo and Watts claim that
surface-temperature data has been so widely tampered with �that it
cannot be credibly asserted there has been a significant �global
warming� in the 20th Century.�

�The global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted
to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And,
consequently, such data should be ignored for decision-making,� they
From: Polarhound on
Even the reporting stations aren't following the guidelines to ensure
objective data:

NOAA - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration states that
temperature monitoring stations must be placed certain distances away
from any heat producing devices. Generally that distance is 100 feet.

But these NOAA regulations are NOT being followed and temperature
stations are being placed ridiculously close to high heat producing
devices such as air conditioning units, exhaust fans, trash burning
drums, barbecue grills, sewage treatment plants, airplane engines,
tennis courts, and other hot places that are SPECIFICALLY warned against
placing the sensors near.

NOAA's rules specifically state that temperature sensors should not be
placed within 100 feet of buildings, concrete, or asphalt parking lots,
and certainly not in the vicinity of any heat producing devices such as
air conditioners or hot air vents.

Even the National Weather Service is not following the rules as the
where these temperature monitoring stations are to be placed. If THEY
aren't following the rules how would we expect others to as well?


Tons of pictures included.
From: Ray OHara on

"mr. gone" <mr_gone78NOSPAM(a)> wrote in message rn Fox OFF.
> otoh, taking a single year's worth of data as proof of anything seems
> kind of overreaching too. there is a difference between "weather" and
> "climate". now, an incredibly warm *decade* like the nineties says a lot
> more. and average temperatures rising worldwide for, say, a century,
> allowing for localized areas of cooling because by warming models, that
> *will" happen, would seem to say a great deal - which it appears we're
> going toward. and i really don't want to hear the non-warming side
> arguing for leaving things as they are because there isn't enough proof.
> it doesn't take a genius to know that dumping pollutants into the
> ecosystem can't possibly be a good thing and that doing this could very
> likely contribute to warming, just as smoking, overdrinking and eating
> junk food can be very bad for a person. there is such a thing as being
> proactive and changing before you get, say, cancer or have a fatal heart
> attack. waiting for that "tipping" point doesn't seem terribly prudent
> if you want to give yourself a fighting chance.

who are you to dispute Rush, Beck and the paid shills of the Oil Industry.
they know better than some fancy Dan elitist scientist..
there is no Global Warming in the Bible so there is no Global Warming
period, end of the discussion.
you betchya

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: question
Next: Tweet 7/15