Delingpole: All of Recent U.S. Warming Has Been Faked by NOAA

[240B]

Breitbart
by JAMES DELINGPOLE
23 Aug 2017


Here is the chart that demonstrates the scale of the fraud (as nailed by Steven Goddard).






You don’t need to be a scientist to see the hoax here: it’s there in blue and red. The blue is based on the raw data from weather stations in each of the U.S. states since 1990, which clearly shows a downward (ie cooling) trend. The red is what the data from these same stations shows after the climate fraudsters at NOAA have “adjusted” it. Now, instead of cooling it shows warming.


(more explanation at link)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/23/delingpole-all-of-recent-u-s-warming-has-been-faked-by-noaa/

[Suppressed]

Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations.

Nearly every station has been moved at some point.

Stations have converted over from mercury thermometers to digital ones.

Adjustments have been made for consistency over the historical record.  But, of course, the reality is that Delingpole wants to take an old 60 degree reading made in the afternoon and compare it to the temps now being measured as 60 degrees in the morning and say there's no warming.

[Bigun]

Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations.

Nearly every station has been moved at some point.

Stations have converted over from mercury thermometers to digital ones.

Adjustments have been made for consistency over the historical record.  But, of course, the reality is that Delingpole wants to take an old 60 degree reading made in the afternoon and compare it to the temps now being measured as 60 degrees in the morning and say there's no warming.

There is a reason why most have been moved and that is because they were located in places picked strictly for the purpose of providing false high readings!  There is no such thing as man made global warming and there never has been!

[Suppressed]

There is a reason why most have been moved and that is because they were located in places picked strictly for the purpose of providing false high readings!

Yes, I'm sure they plotted it all out more than a century ago.

Even Anthony Watts admits the cooling bias in the instrument change, and does anyone here think that morning temperatures are equivalent to afternoon ones?

[Bigun]

Yes, I'm sure they plotted it all out more than a century ago.

Even Anthony Watts admits the cooling bias in the instrument change, and does anyone here think that morning temperatures are equivalent to afternoon ones?

The ones I'm speaking of haven't been there for anything like a century but you already knew that!  Carry on!

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

They can collect their data in the morning or the afternoon.  On a hill or in the valley.  And then adjust it as they see fit.  None of which will change the fact that it is not getting warmer.

Our high temps have been 4-5 degrees below average this summer.  That just doesn't happen.  I live in a place where I once heard the forecast on the radio, "a normal summer day", and knew exactly what that meant.  And yet, just like every year, this will be the hottest year on record.

[dfwgator]

Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations.

Nearly every station has been moved at some point.

Stations have converted over from mercury thermometers to digital ones.

Adjustments have been made for consistency over the historical record.  But, of course, the reality is that Delingpole wants to take an old 60 degree reading made in the afternoon and compare it to the temps now being measured as 60 degrees in the morning and say there's no warming.

And if there is indeed warming, so what?    The climate has always changed, and we'll do what we've always done,  adapt.

[goatprairie]

And if there is indeed warming, so what?    The climate has always changed, and we'll do what we've always done,  adapt.

We are well below the temps of about one thousand years ago when Greenland was being settled by the Danes and they were growing grapes. Needless to say, they haven't been growing grapes in Greenland for quite a while.
The Doomists say that an increase in average temps by just a few degrees will destroy all life on the planet.
If that's true,  then why wasn't all life on Earth destroyed when  the temps rose high enough to grow grapes on Greenland one thousand years ago.
And where are the reports of coastal towns in northern Europe flooded/destroyed by rising waters during that warming spell?

[jmyrlefuller]

Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations.

Nearly every station has been moved at some point.

Stations have converted over from mercury thermometers to digital ones.

Adjustments have been made for consistency over the historical record.  But, of course, the reality is that Delingpole wants to take an old 60 degree reading made in the afternoon and compare it to the temps now being measured as 60 degrees in the morning and say there's no warming.

That is not even remotely how those types of measurements and observations are made. The maximum/minimum mercury thermometer, a staple of meteorology for centuries, measures over a 24-hour span. Whether you measure that period from the morning or the evening, the temperature remains the same. Maximum and minimum temperatures are independent of the time of day they're taken. All it would affect is the calendar date on which that temperature was measured (so if it hits 60 at 4 p.m. on March 23, if the measurement's taken at 3 p.m., that high will be recorded as being on March 24).

Furthermore, both mercury and digital thermometers are about the same as far as accuracy is concerned; digital is used mainly for convenience, and either way, they're calibrated before use so temperatures on any given one would be the same. There is no cooling bias in the change of instruments. The only way such a bias could be conceived is if urbanization happened around the old stations and they were moved to more appropriate locales.

[Suppressed]

That is not even remotely how those types of measurements and observations are made.

Note that you are using the present tense, while the conversation is regarding historical information.

I agree that   that the climatic-level-data effect of the recording-time change is not there.  The point is, there's still an adjustment required to daily measurements.  And people are implying that "adjustments" to the dataset are somehow evil.  But if we don't do that, then a change in temperatures from one day to the next will be shifted, because afternoons are warmer than mornings, and the day-to-day ratios will be off.  It's not a warming/cooling bias, but it still requires "adjustment".

Furthermore, both mercury and digital thermometers are about the same as far as accuracy is concerned; digital is used mainly for convenience, and either way, they're calibrated before use so temperatures on any given one would be the same. There is no cooling bias in the change of instruments.

Yeah, that change in the 80s resulted in no difference...


http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-cooling-bias-due-to-mmts

The only way such a bias could be conceived is if urbanization happened around the old stations and they were moved to more appropriate locales.

Yes, there is a bias toward more urban locations for stations.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And yet, just like every year, this will be the hottest year on record.

Well, I'm not wrong yet:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/july-2017-earths-1st-or-2nd-warmest-july-record

[truth_seeker]

The correct issue should be stated: Has human activity contributed to climatic changes? If so, how and how much?

Because there were wide climate variation, long before human activity was significant to have been a causal factor.

Ice ages, followed by warming, followed by more ice ages etc.

[NavyCanDo]

The climate has been changing ever since Noah's neighbor stuck his head out the door and said, " dang, looks like rain".

We all like clean air, clean water, and garbage where it is suppose to be, in a can and I can support that. But we can throw Trillions of dollars into trying to adjust the weather to whatèver perfect weather is, planet wide and we will find we are powerless to chànge it one iota.

[Suppressed]

The correct issue should be stated: Has human activity contributed to climatic changes? If so, how and how much?

Because there were wide climate variation, long before human activity was significant to have been a causal factor.

Ice ages, followed by warming, followed by more ice ages etc.

Agreed.  And we should currently be experiencing cooling, based on geologic factors.  So no change would be an anomalous "warming" from nature.

That's why the IPCC scare-tactic graphs were stupid.  Even if we are trashing the planet -- and that's not certain -- natural variations can allow for periods of cooling in an overall warming trend.  But they tried to present things as an inevitable climb, and it's coming back to bite them!

[Fishrrman]

Here in southern New England, this summer has been unusually mild. Only a handful of days where it hit 90. Not even that many days in the high 80's.

The heat in my house was on in June.

Tonight (according to Wunderground.com) it's going down to 51, 52 tomorrow night. That's almost into the 40's -- in August.

Global warming, my (you know what).

[Oceander]

The correct issue should be stated: Has human activity contributed to climatic changes? If so, how and how much?

Because there were wide climate variation, long before human activity was significant to have been a causal factor.

Ice ages, followed by warming, followed by more ice ages etc.