Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment

Attempting to promulgate the theory of global warming, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed that the year 2012 was the “hottest” year on record. This toppled the previous records set in 1936. But after being called on the false statistics, without saying a word about the change, NOAA very quietly returned 1936 to leader status.

Weather blogger Anthony Watts has a very detailed report on all the changes, re-changes, and alterations on the NOAA data, changes that keep the “hottest” year floating around from era to era. One wonders how if this is “science” that data can keep changing for years that are in the past, sometimes decades past?

As Watts charges:

This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

Watts goes on with his damning record of the NOAA changes.

“This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bulls**t of the highest order,” he notes. “It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.”

But the most amazing thing is that NOAA keeps altering this data every time someone looks at it but never notes to visitors of its website that the data has been monkeyed with.

But the most importantly one wonders how data from long past years can keep changing long after the fact?

NARAL Board Member Urges Women to Have a Fu*K-In at Hobby Lobby For Revenge
Open Thread on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision.
  • yetanotherjohn

    You see there was a personal computer crash, so the original data was lost. NOAA has just been making it up as they go along now.

    • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

      I like that explanation.

    • FarOutlier

      Makes sense to me.

  • Hank_M

    “…one wonders how data from long past years can keep changing long after the fact?”
    I wonder how they can keep claiming the science is settled when the data keeps changing, when their predictions fail, when they’re proven wrong at every turn.

    • yetanotherjohn

      If you think “the science is settled” is about the science or that the predictions are about hypothesis proof in the future, then you haven’t been paying attention. Global warming/Climate Change/War on Women/Occupy Wall Street, etc. are just the means toward the same ends, putting the left in power.
      As a wise man once said, I’ll believe its a crisis when they start acting like its a crisis.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      “I wonder how they can keep claiming the science is settled when the data keeps changing, when their predictions fail, when they’re proven wrong at every turn.”

      “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
      Back to the future….Welcome to 1984.

      • FarOutlier

        Goes well with it is not important who votes, what is important is who counts the votes (Stalin said it somewhat differently). I have to keep quite or someone will put a rat in a cage on me.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Because it’s about ‘STFU’, not about science. It’s always been about STFU.

  • jim_m

    The science is settled. They just haven’t finished fudging the data to support their preordained conclusions.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Those of us who are skeptics are not skeptics about the basic science, we’re skeptical about the power and money grab of elitists based on alleged “science” which, in turn, is based on fudged figures presented by unscrupulous pseudoscientists who try to silence those who question their fudged figures.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I’ve been skeptical about their science for a long time. You DON’T ‘adjust’ raw data retroactively, then use that adjusted data to put out predictions based on programs that you don’t allow others to test.

      That’s like trying to print a measuring tape on elastic. Just pull it until you get whatever measurement you want – accuracy be damned.

      Now they’re letting things go back the other way. What next – in 4-5 years they go “Global warming? We never said that. It’s obvious by how the ice caps are advancing that we’re cooling, and it’s all CO2′s fault.”

  • GarandFan

    AGW is an evolving religion. Don’t like the name or the data, they’ll change it tomorrow.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Science!

  • LiberalNightmare

    It would be more convincing if the global warming crowd put at least a little effort into actually doing something about it.

    Aside from name-calling and raising taxes, has the global warming crowd actually done anything effective about global warming/cooling/climate change?

    • jim_m

      Doing something about it would mean that, if effective, they would eliminate their ability to extort tax money from everyone else. Doing something about it simpy isn’t going to happen. Guilting everyone else is too profitable

    • Jwb10001

      I’ve said a number of times, if the science is settled then stop funding additional science and send the funding somewhere that solutions can be developed.

    • SteveCrickmore075

      It depends where you live or what party stripe your Governor is? http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/01/3449868/renewables-soar/ The “world is already adding more renewable-energy capacity each year than fossil fuel capacity,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) explained earlier this year. And BNEF’s just-released 2030 Market Outlook projects that disparity will skyrocket, concluding that “renewable energy may reap as much as two-thirds of the $7.7 trillion in investment forecast for building new power plants by 2030 as declining costs make it more competitive with fossil fuels.”

      • jim_m

        Funny that you have no response on the scientific fraud perpetrated to shore up your fascist religious beliefs.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        And please tell us how many degrees the net effect of this “investment” [crony...cough...cough] will be. Will we save 1 or 2 or 3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050? The science is settled, so I’m sure you can tell us down to the tenth of degree how much $7.7 trillion worth of bird killers will cool the earth.

        • jim_m

          The plan is to force everyone onto wind power than ban wind power because it kills birds and force everyone into the 18th century.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’d also have to ban those bird cooking, high-powered mirrored solar power things, as well.

  • Commander_Chico

    I don’t see the stake everyone has in burning carbon and dumping soot into the atmosphere.

    • jim_m

      It’s called modern society. And if you look at who is doing it, it isn’t the US, we are actually net reducers of carbon. The real culprits are nations like China, and yet idiots like you never say boo to them about their emissions.

      • Commander_Chico

        I think the scientists say a lot about China.

        Since I’m old and selfish, it doesn’t make much difference to me. The kids will have to figure out how to survive if it gets hotter.

        I’m glad there are some forward-looking researchers looking at the trends, though.

        • jim_m

          I’m glad there are some forward-looking researchers looking at the trends and fudging the data to make those trends look like AGW is actually happening.

          FIFY

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      The willfully blind never do.

    • Jwb10001

      Enjoy your bike ride to where ever you’re going then. Oh and shut off the AC and unplug the refig while you’re at it. You might want to also consider shutting down your computer unless you have one of the everlasting batteries that don’t actually exist. Otherwise, I’d suggest you already know the answer. How is it you manage to get to your pay for sex vacations or whatever it is you do, I suspect you don’t swim.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Nah, he should reduce his personal carbon footprint to zero, including exhaled Carbon Dioxide…

      • Commander_Chico

        Do you think these MIT guys are all full of shit and you know better?

        http://cgcs.mit.edu/publications

        .

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Why haven’t you reduced your personal carbon footprint to zero yet?

          • Commander_Chico

            Do you think that is funny?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I think the world would be a better place if you did.

        • jim_m

          I think that you just posted a page of search results and you have absolutely no idea what all of those papers claim because you haven’t read a single one of them.

          • Commander_Chico

            I didn’t read anything but the titles. I’m not an atmospheric physicist or gas chemist.

            I know enough to see that these MIT savants are taking the idea of man-made climate change seriously.

            Those who rail against the idea of climate change as a lie seem to be irrational. You can be skeptical, but denouncing the body of science as a lie is just stupid.

            Occam’s Razor – what is the most likely explanation of a large number of peer review studies supporting the theory, the existence of a massive conspiracy of thousands of scientists, or the existence of evidence supporting the theory?

          • jim_m

            You are miss applying occam’s razor. You do not apply it to the mass hysteria of the authors. You apply it to their data. SO is it more reasonable to assume that the earth is warming due to human intervention? Or is it more reasonable to assume that factors which at one time made the earth far warmer than it is today may be at play?

            AGW is an ideological conclusion not based in science. Our academic institutions will not allow anyone who does not toe the line on AGW gain tenure. Is it not reasonable to assume that this stricture limiting the ability of people to have a successful career is somehow causing them to bias their viewpoints? Occam’s razor tells us that this is very likely.

            You are arguing that science is valid BECAUSE CONSENSUS! Consensus isn’t science you dumbass. Consensus is in this case the result of an ideologically driven mass hysteria. AGW computer models have failed to predict a single thing. A scientific theory should enable us to make accurate predictions. A theory based on ideology is fallible and that is what we have.

          • Commander_Chico

            So your judgment about these things is superior to MIT scientists? OK.

            There are also dissenting voices at MIT and elsewhere. They haven’t lost their jobs, so your idea that tenured professors are cowed by pressure is absurd.

            I don’t have a strong position on it: it seem prudent to both reduce emissions and reduce dependence on oil.

            Chico can’t solve all of the world’s problems.

          • jim_m

            My judgement is that while the specifics of those papers (none of which address global warming and all of which describe very specific issues that have nothing to dowith global warming) are probably correctly described by the authors, your conclusions that there is any connection to AGW is spurious as the papers appear to be of far to narrow a scope to prove AGW in and of themselves and that therefore any conclusions that they prove AGW are ideologically driven.

            You want to claim that to deny AGW is to deny every scrap of science these people create. That is not true. For instance, if you want to talk about “Quantifying aluminum and semiconductor industry perfluorocarbon emissions from atmospheric measurements” I am sure that you can do exactly that: Quantify industry emissions from atmospheric measurements. I don’t think that you can draw a conclusion that such a paper either supports much less proves that AGW is true.

            The paper titles listed are all like that. They are not about global warming at all. They are about pollution and are on too small a scale to be capable of confirming or disproving AGW.

            What this goes to show is that you are so incredibly ignorant about science that if someone throws a bunch of multisyllabic words together you will believe anything.

        • Jwb10001

          I don’t think I was responding to the MIT guys, I was responding to the goofy post you put up.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    “The choice is apparent to all but the most extreme head-in-the-sand idealogues (wizbang’s diminishing band of neanderthals): We can learn from science and from the mistakes of the past, take on the “climate bubble” now, and unleash the power of innovation to spur the next industrial revolution. Or we can continue ignoring science and face a devastating “carbon crash” that will ravage the world far more than the recent economic crash — and irreversibly so. from another fascist pinko religious socialist…Former Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=1We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.

    This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course. That’s the smug wizbang way of reacting to any change in the world.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      No, that’s Obama supporters are running us into a mountain.

      Come on, Steve, tell us. How much will the $7.7 trillion investment in “renewables” cool the earth?

      While you’re at it, tell us what the best temperature for our planet is. When did we reach that temperature?

      We can all find juicy quotes from the other side: “A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

      Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

      “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.”

    • jim_m

      Look idiot. Either you address the issues of fraud or you look like some cartoon mad man waving the sign saying “the end is near”.

      You can either learn from your experience falling for con games or you can look like a fool to everyone for the rest of your days.

    • jim_m

      We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both
      our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing
      more urgent as the risks go unchecked.

      Except that all your predictions are based upon fraudulent science where the data has been cooked to provide the preordained result. So you are asking us to pay heed to a prediction based on a lie.

      And what risks are there really? We don’t know because the data has all been faked and the research is a fraud. What was the result back in the medieval warm period when the earth was warmer than it is today?(and yes the evidence DOES show that this was a global phenomenon not just regional like your lying friends try to claim. And why should we believe their claims that it wasn’t when we have already demonstrated that they are lying about everything else?)

      How did people in the dark ages produce so much CO2 to change their climate? And what happened that saved the earth from annihilation back then? The renaissance?

      But please keep coming back. We could all use the laughs.

    • Hank_M

      As Walter keeps asking…

      How much will the $7.7 trillion investment in “renewables” cool the earth?

      Seems only fair to answer the question.

      • jim_m

        The IPCC estimated that if all carbon emissions were ceased immediately that the reduction in global warming, below what they thought would already happen regardless of what we do, would be so small that we don’t have the technology to tell whether or not the predicted reduction even happened.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        We really don’t need the $7.7 t “investment” (read – tax the people and subsidize government cronies). Clean fossil fuels (natural gas) and nuclear do more to curb CO2 emissions than wasting money on inefficient, intermittent “renewables” that require fossil fuel powered plants to run continuously at sub-optimum power.

        ” § The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[5]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[6] [7].”

        “§ The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/04/message-to-the-president-data-shows-co2-reduction-is-futile/#more-112527

        To quote Sarah Palin: “Drill, baby, drill.”

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Global investment in energy is already $1 trillion a year and rising. The problem is that much of that investment goes to fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency, government subsidies for fossil fuels are around $500 billion a year – six times more than subsidies for renewables. The magnitude of the clean-energy investment challenge is roughly similar to today’s fossil-fuel subsidies. So if we used the subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas to invest in solar, wind and nuclear energy, global warming would be close to being solved. Investments have a return, so they may not represent a burden at all. They can be quite profitable. The burden is really an opportunity.

        What is inescapable is that time is short, because most energy infrastructure has a lifetime of 30 to 60 years. Unless the [clean energy investment] gap is filled rather quickly, the 2°C target could potentially become out of reach,http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25846-stopping-harmful-climate-change-is-surprisingly-cheap.html#.U7fv6TcU9LM

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Steve, that study, like most alarmist propaganda, is crap. For example, the statement you quote that “subsidies for fossil fuels are around … six times more than subsidies for renewables” is grossly misleading. If you look at subsidies needed per equivalent energy unit, renewable subsidies are seven times that of subsidies for fossil fuels.

          “This, of course, is extremely bad news for the promoters of the subsidies. It means that to get the amount of energy we currently use, without using fossil fuels and solely from renewables, it would require seven times the current fossil fuel subsidy, or $3.5 TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.”

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/the-price-tag-of-renewables-part-2/#more-112443
          All renewables require back up power plants fueled by fossil fuels, running continuously at sub-optimum efficiency. Renewables are simply not ready for prime time. To argue for the complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is to argue for the death of millions of people, mostly in undeveloped countries, and the utter devastation of civilization as we know it.

          • jim_m

            To argue for the complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is to argue for the death of millions of people, mostly in undeveloped countries, and the utter devastation of civilization as we know it.

            In other words it would result in exactly what the left intends it to.

        • alanstorm

          Steve, by all means. Let’s invest in nuclear power.

          Wind and solar are niche products – the wind doesn’t always blow, nor does the sun always shine. Unless and until you come up with a storage mechanism for either of these, you are full of used food.

    • klgmac

      You quote the NYT as a source? That’s funny. They are not credible in the least.

  • Hawk_TX

    The irony is that they should be adjusting modern temperature readings down due to increasing urbanization and the resulting heat island effect.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE