NOAA KEEPS RAISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
“NOAA have increased global temperatures in every year from 2001 to 2017 by an average 0.06 C. Even the latest temperature anomaly for 2017 was raised from 0.84 C to 0.90 C. Your article on March 11th did not include the amended anomalies in the link below published in June this year”..June Hover.
NOAA Raised Anomalies
Click to Enlarge
NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a Glance: Global Time Series, published June 2019. 1880-2017
In each of NOAA’s Annual Climate Reports, the degree of warming above the long term average of 13.9o C, is listed. From 2007, NOAA Temperature Anomalies 2007, the ten warmest years are shown in order in all of the reports but are increased multiple times in subsequent issues finally arriving at the same temperature anomaly shown in the above Global Time Series. 1880-2017
Take for example the NOAA Climate Report for 2010 NOAA Temperature Anomalies 2010 showing it at the top of the ten warmest years table with an anomaly of 0.62 C. In the 2011 report it was increased to 0.64 C. By 2012 it was increased to 0.66 C and by 2015 it was listed at 0.70 C, NOAA Temperature Anomalies 2015 finally in the Global Time Series it was again raised to 0.72 C, equal to a global temperature of 14.62 C when added to the 13.90 C average Global temperature. Without the increased temperatures, excluding the El Nino effect of 2015/16,
there appears to be a very small amount of warming recorded.
The Latest reading of 0.79 C suggests temperatures have declined sharply to where they were in 2013/14. It is interesting that the NOAA Temperature Anomalies 2018 (0.79 C), which was posted before the publication of the Global Time Series 1880-2017 in June 2019, has not been altered.
When compared with NOAA temperature anomalies, the Met Office anomaly data in BLUE shows mostly cooler temperatures from 1880 up to the 70’s/80’s then very much cooler temperatures up to 2017. This has enabled NOAA to demonstrate a higher degree of warming over the period, a total of one degree Celsius compared with UK Met Office at 0.900 C. NOAA and Met Office Compared
NOAA incorrect Temperature Click to enlarge
The NOAA climate reports go back as far as 1997 when it mistakenly used the wrong base line when it recorded a global temperature of 16.92 C (62.45 F) more than two degrees Celsius warmer than today!
Led by NOAA’s Senior Scientist Tom Karl, the team analyzed temperatures from around the globe during the years 1900 to 1997 and back to 1880 for land areas. For 1997, land and ocean temperatures averaged three quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (F) (0.42 degrees Celsius (C)) above normal. (Normal is defined by the mean temperature, 61.7 degrees F (16.5 degrees C), for the 30 years 1961-90). The 1997 figure exceeds the previous warm year, 1990, by 0.15 degrees F (0.08 degrees C).
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
Cooler, Warmer or Same? Click to enlarge
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.”
Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.
Sea Levels Rising/Globe on Fire Click to enlarge
In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown’s story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.”
Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump’s face into a glacier to prove climate change “is happening.”
In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.
28 Comments
The trillions of dollars wasted on this warming scare could be used to reduce the world’s poverty stricken and the betterment of mankind generally.
Prince Charles, undeterred by his previous doomsday predictions failing to eventuate, now estimates that we have only 18 months to save the world.
I believe the world is warming but we are yet to determine the ratio of natural variability. The IPCC did estimate that it was less than 50% (2002) but the same scientists are now saying it is minuscule.. This is hard to believe given the world’s history of ice ages and warming periods gleaned from ice core evidence when man was’t present.
Are we to believe that temperature data collected by 30-year old instruments in the 1980/90s, upon which the Anthropogenic Global Warming enterprise was based, is more reliable than that collected by billions of dollars worth of new land, oceanic, air and space instruments (i.e. the “observing system”) because their data does not show warming?
Are we to believe that after decades of technological advancement, our temperature readings now are less reliable than those of yore? …. From a Comment that I read recently.
The method of measuring temperatures in the 90’s was obviously flawed by their own admission.
If 1997 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1995, it means they were using the wrong method of measuring temperature throughout the the 90’s…so how can we be confident of the accuracy of temperatures readings in any of the decades leading up to 1997. The 1880-2017 Global Time Series shows they have increased the anomaly from 0.42 C to 0.51 C. for the year 1997.
We are told that the world is warming at the rate of 0.13 Celsius per decade but how can they be so confident that they are right when they keep jacking up temperatures by almost half that in one year..
2010 would not rank among the top ten warmest years had they not altered it by a whopping 0.10 degrees Celsius. It seems that if they raise one they must also raise others otherwise they lose the warming trend…..and all the government grants and the booze ups at the IPCC conferences.
Former Greens leader Bob Brown, who helped foist the Carbon tax on Australia, led a successful protest against the construction of the massive Franklin hydro plant some years back and now wants to prevent wind turbines from being built on an island near Tasmania. This comes after his caravan into Queensland campaigning to stop the Adani coal mine..what a joke!
Why had they not increased temperatures anomalies before 2001 if their methodology in measuring had been so wrong and why had each particular year been adjusted gradually over the twenty years. The fact that 2016/17 years had also been increased must surely raise a red flag.
The temperatures before 2001 were not increased because it would have buggered up the warming trend…. Geraldine S
I have always regarded satellite measuring of temperatures more reliable rather than recording them manually. During the early nineties the recording of temperature data was hardly exact. I would visit a friend who worked for the weather bureau in a monitoring station at the Melbourne Airport located in a tower similar to a light house. His work included taking readings from a weather station located a short walk away. There were days when he got stuck on the phone, having a nap, too wet/hot or “hangover” which would prevent him from taking the readings at the appointed time. So he would record the data by using his own estimations.
It had always been my view that weather stations should be located in rural areas instead of locating them near buildings and roads where absorbed heat results in higher temperature readings.
Climate Emergency!
The politicians and councillors of this country have fallen for the lies. Most of them have no understanding on science, and are brainwashed by the scientific elite and monopoly groups, usually involved in some sort of state paid job, eager for business and first class air travel to lavish climate change conferences. Once they join the “saving the world” club, they will never recant and admit their deception for fear of being excluded from the gravy train.
Hopefully these all too quiet scientists can come out without fear of being fired and /or losing their pensions if they break ranks.
It was crucial to raised temperatures up to and including 2014/15 prior to the Paris conference otherwise it would have been a lemonade, not that most of the 40,000 people who attended would have worried just as long as the could join in with the 12 day booze up.
The earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years, humans present only recently, which is a lot of climate change that we can’t blame man for.
We cannot ignore ice core evidence unless you are a member of the IPCC or a left wing teacher.
These climate scientists could not have envisaged the wealth of information that would follow with the digital revolution before they embarked on the ice age and global warming scams. They are on the back foot now that satellites are being used to measure temperatures and that cannot be tampered with.
John Holdren, who was senior science adviser to the Obama government, warned of an ice age before he switched over to global warming. He also suggested that mass castration be adopted if the world’s population got out of hand. He, along with his sidekick Paul Ehrlich who the ABC had embraced, helped Al Gore complete his inconvenient truth documentary.
Respond
They were teaching this global warming cattle manure in many of our primary schools from about 1990 onward. The theory was accepted as gospel among our left wing primary school teachers who have been organising street protests. I recall my younger daughter asking me what I thought about the dangers of carbon dioxide and whether the world will become too hot for survival of mankind. I reassured her that the problem was being addressed and there was nothing to be concerned about…How dare they indoctrinate our children with this rubbish!
Most sensible people who are not financially dependent upon the climate change gravy train are sensible enough to fully realise man cannot control climate and extreme weather. Yet, incredible though it may seem, there still remain some, who are otherwise intelligent, who still believe the claims of reversible impending human caused climatic destruction of the entire globe. How can this be? What drives people to cling to such strange and extreme beliefs?
If the temperature anomaly of 0.79 C for 2018, which indicates substantial cooling, is not changed it could be a severe blow for the believers but like in previous years NOAA reserves the right to alter anomalies whenever they see fit…..Watch this space!
The inconvenient truth is that we are in the CO2 emissions trafficking business as a result of the coal we are exporting for other countries to burn. We are also paying these countries for their emissions by importing the cheaper goods they make from the burning of our coal. Therefore we are among the highest emitters of C02 but at a distance… as simple as that.
I hope they keep up these doomsday predictions. As their world’s expiry date passes the closer it will get to the unraveling of this hoax and the sooner these fraudsters and temperature tamperers are brought to justice.
The climate has changed over the last century but it is not due to CO2 emissions. 1. The greatest rate of warming was between 1910-1945 when there was very little increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
2. During the period of significant cooling between 1945-75 there was a huge increase in emissions accompanied by lower temperatures so it must have been natural variability.
Assuming that the old method of measuring sparsely located thermometers in the 1900’s were accurate, the global temperature has increased by approximately 1 degree Celsius since 1880. During this period we have attained huge improvements in technology, medicine, welfare and attained a standard of living well beyond our wildest imagination. So why are we concerned about global warming/climate change. I don’t get it!
Météo-France said the mercury at its Paris-Montsouris station in the French capital surpassed the previous high of 40.4C, set in July 1947, soon after 1 pm and continued to climb, reaching 42.6C soon after 4pm.
Could it be said that global temperatures had been falling for 72 years before this recent record hot spell or is it evidence that the world is suddenly warming?? Good news for for both alarmists and deniers!
Why have the IPCC removed the following statement from the record: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”?
Your quite right the major alteration was made because it embarrassed IPCC scientists, “a strategy must recognize what is possible, in climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.
“The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles”.
They now consider man is responsible for 100% of the current global warming whereas before they said that humans were responsible for more than 50% of the total warming. This insinuates that there is no longer natural variability, like the 1,000’s of years before man.
Climate change will be officially included in HSC geography lessons when the syllabus is overhauled for the first time in 20 years — but students will be asked to make up their own minds about what is causing it.
From 2022, Year 11 and 12 geography students will learn about the impacts of climate change on people and the environment.
Students will need to research and consider the evidence for climate change and whether it is caused by humans or natural climatic variations.
Indoctrination?
What will they be taught? How will they be marked?
NASA are now saying solar minimum could lead to ice age!
We are now led to believe that all temperature readings in the 1900’s were 100% accurate, even though NOAA’s anomalies were mistakenly more than two degrees warmer in their 1997 climate report.
Why was it necessary to raise temperatures after 2000 and not before…they were were not more accurate in the decades before, surely not!
In addition the IPCC have no explanation as to why we had the longest period of warming, between 1910-1945, when global CO2 levels were much lower than they are today.
And why had the world’s temperatures cooled between 1945 to 1977 even though CO2 emissions had mushroomed during this period?
And why are they now saying that all recent warming was due to man’s activities and not at least partially due natural variability.
Like many climate scientists and climate science communicators must feel, I’m sick with frustration. I want to shout, “Hey, people of Earth, pay attention! We have collectively changed the planet; it’s a done deal!”
Dogma is an impediment to the free exercise of thought—it paralyses the intelligent. Conclusions based upon preconceived ideas are valueless—it is only the open mind that really thinks.
I agree that climate change could be a natural phenomena most likely caused by solar activity. The scientists have a greenhouse theory but have no evidence to support it, except for the moderate warming we are experiencing now being turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been proven..in fact there is more evidence to suggest it is the result of natural variability. The modelling only confirms that the world is warming a little but provides no evidence of its cause. Core samples suggest that previous warming and cooling periods were not accompanied by any increase or reduction in CO2.