151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

UPDATE: DUE TO ELEVATED INTEREST, THIS ARTICLE WILL BE A STICKY POST FOR ANOTHER DAY OR TWO.

Fellow New Englander, engineering physicist and energy expert, Mike Brakey has sent a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature “adjustments” for Maine.
=====================================

Black Swan Climate Theory
By Mike Brakey

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).

Brakey_1

Figure 1: NOAA cooled the years of Maine’s past by an accumulated 151°F! (55,188 heating degree day units).

The last four months have been some of the coldest you might ever recall in our lifetime. So far 2015 is the fourth coldest in Maine’s history over the last 120 years. Data from 2013 confirm that so far – from January 1 to April 29 – 2015 has required 4249 heating degree days.

That rivals 1904, 1918 and 1923 over the last 120 years.

But when I recently looked at NOAA’s revised 2015 data, these last four months now would not even put us in the top twenty of coldest months. The federal government went into the historical data and lowered those earlier years – and other years in the earlier decades – so that they can keep spending $27 billion a year on pushing global warming.

They assumed no one would archive temperature data. But I did. My research indicated they used the same algorithm across the United States at the same time. Fortunately I had archived their data from 2013 for Maine and recently compared it to their 2015 data (see above table).

As an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, I have worked with heating and cooling degree days for forty years. It is alarming when one discovers multi-million dollar websites have been corrupted with bogus data because the facts do not match up with agendas.

It tremendously harms the industry you and I both work in. Worse, it harms the public. If the public knew the climate data facts indicated it was not getting warmer locally, and that it might actually be getting cooler, it would have all the more reason to insulate and become more energy-efficient in their homes.

I have put together a Maine history of climate temperatures in a narrated PowerPoint Presentation placed on YouTube titled, Black Swan Climate Theory.

Below is a brief sampling of my findings:

Brakey_5

Table 1: Sampling of findings.

So far 2015 Maine temperatures, as of April, are running neck-and-neck with the coldest years in Maine’s history: 1904 (40.6°F), 1918 (42.1°F) and 1925 (42.3°F). These temperatures cited come right from the federal government’s own NOAA climate data (from 2013). I archived them on my computer for future reference.

2015 so far among coldest on record

A BLACK SWAN event is forming in 2015 (following chart):

Brakey_2

Figure 2: Plot comparing the new, altered dataset to the 2013 dataset. Black curve is the plot of the 2013 dataset. The blue curve is the plot of the 2015 new, altered data.

Based on the first four months of 2015, there is an excellent chance 2015 Maine temperature might average, on an annual basis, well under 43.0°F. Not only have Maine temperatures been on a decline since 1998, we are now seeing temperatures reminiscent of the bitter turn of the early 1900s.

“Massive rewrite”

It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2°F between 1895 and 2012.

“Out-and-out fraud”

In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.

Brakey_4

Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4°F!

For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F.

Unfortunately NOAA is remaining true to that old saying, “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

A multi-million dollar website has been corrupted. I can no longer rely on the tax-payer funded NOAA for clean, unfiltered, climate data for my ongoing research.

Conclusion

I can no longer trust the climate data and energy information ultimately drawn from the U.S. government. Locally, I now have to determine if they got their data from NOAA.

This makes research a lot tougher.

Mike Brakey

31 responses to “151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History”

  1. Climate “Fiction -“They are not longer Climate Scientists…they are Fiction writers…. | "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

    […] 151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate Hi… […]

  2. A Prediction Coming True? | Watts Up With That?

    […] Pierre Gosselin of NoTricksZone has a post by Mike Brakey on NOAA adjustments of the temperature record of Lewiston-Auburn, Maine. In short, the NOAA are shameless liars. Their cooling of the past to keep the global warming meme alive reminds me of the old Soviet joke – the future is known, it is the past that keeps changing. The NOAA can’t be accused of not thinking big. They lowered the average temperature of Lewiston-Auburn in 1913 by 4.0°F (2.2°C). But the perversion and corruption of the temperature record to serve dark ends is something that we are inured to. One of Mr Brakey’s complaints about the NOAA perversion of the temperature record is that he can’t trust official figures any more in serving his clients. […]

  3. AGW in Austin? | POLITICS & PROSPERITY

    […] Little Ice Melt, Lack of Imagination,” Cato at Liberty, May 1, 2015 Mike Brakey, “151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate Hi…,” NoTricksZone, May 2, 2015 (see also David Archibald, “A Prediction Coming […]

  4. sod
    1. AndyG55

      Zeke… lol ! 🙂

      Find him a paper bag to explain his way out.. he’d be lost for days.

      1. sod

        “Find him a paper bag to explain his way out.. he’d be lost for days.”

        This is a “sceptic” page (Judith Curry).

        Zeke is explaining the “rewriting” of history.

        you should at least try to undestand the time of observation problem, before you start talking about tis subject.

        1. AndyG55

          Curry is not a sceptic. she’s a fence sitter.

          And I do understand how TOBs works, and how it is used to adjust past temperatures downwards regardless of reality. It is you that are gullible enough to let Zeke bamboozle you his childish non-explanations of manipulations of the data. But then , you have many times shown that you have very little understanding of these matters, and are just here to squawk the alarmist squawk.

        2. AndyG55

          Zeke’s explanations are designed to fool the gullible.. ie you.

          He has nothing concrete or scientific to offer.

          1. sod

            This is pure logic:

            “At first glance, it would seem that the time of observation wouldn’t matter at all. After all, the instrument is recording the minimum and maximum temperatures for a 24-hour period no matter what time of day you reset it. The reason that it matters, however, is that depending on the time of observation you will end up occasionally double counting either high or low days more than you should. For example, say that today is unusually warm, and that the temperature drops, say, 10 degrees F tomorrow. If you observe the temperature at 5 PM and reset the instrument, the temperature at 5:01 PM might be higher than any readings during the next day, but would still end up being counted as the high of the next day. Similarly, if you observe the temperature in the early morning, you end up occasionally double counting low temperatures. If you keep the time of observation constant over time, this won’t make any different to the long-term station trends. If you change the observations times from afternoons to mornings, as occurred in the U.S., you change from occasionally double counting highs to occasionally double counting lows, resulting in a measurable bias.”

            http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

            It is not too difficult to understand, but you have to try.

          2. DirkH

            Oh great, sod talks about logic. Your homework shall be to learn the Nyquist theorem. And then come back to us and talk about in how many ways it is violated by, say GISS, or NOAA.

          3. AndyG55

            No sod, You have to be gullible !!

          4. AndyG55

            TOBS is an algorithm designed to cool past temperatures. In reality, TOBS has very little affect, but it is used as one of , if not the single main “adjustment™” to create most of the warming.
            SG has shown it has very little if any REAL effect.

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=TOBS

        3. AndyG55

          And yes, you should try to understand how TOBs is used as a crutch to allow unsubstantiated, unrealistic cooling of past temperatures.

          But you don’t, do you.

    2. David A

      Sod, these adjustments are not related to TOB, and they are far to severe.

      1. Hugh

        What they relate to?

  5. AndyG55

    With world temperatures starting to drop off due to a sleepy sun, there is going to be a lot more of this type of adjustment going on.
    They simply MUST maintain at least level temperatures in the “data™”. Certainly the reality of the cooling trend has to be well hidden at least until after the Paris UN totalitarian control treaty attempt.

  6. RoyFOMR

    Sadly, this type of narrative has a level of impact that is minimal even with those of a ‘climate sceptical’ persuasion.
    The cli-Skept community has long accepted that official temperature adjustments are inevitably in the direction of ‘doom, death and gloom’ and, seemingly, take any evidence in their stride without stopping to push the seriousness that such allegations/evidence would be regarded by those of a more neutral persuasion if exposed to specific exposition such as we have in this post!
    This should be the start of the death-knell for the alarmist side of the climate-change fuss but, it won’t be!
    Both sides of the ‘debate that wasn’t’ are so entrenched in their VP that they seem unable to stand back from their respective crusades and coolly appraise what the world outside their sphere of combat needs thrust forward.
    I, originally linked this article to Bishop Hill but its denizens were too enraptured with battery-technologies to respond.
    I got a wee bit further on Judy’s site but that too was essentially lost in the ‘me too’ noise of blog-chatter.
    As you note, Pierre, this is an important post by Mike. To me, it’s simple, straightforward and potentially damaging to the cause of the TheEndIsNigh, AndItsAllYourFault GiveUsMoreMoneyists.
    Sadly, it is a pretty sure wager that climate-realists will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and let the doomsters off the hook!

  7. NOAA CAUGHT REWRITING US TEMPERATURE HISTORY (AGAIN) - Agenda 21 News

    […] Mike Brakey, an engi­neer­ing physi­cist and heat trans­fer spe­cial­ist, has caught NOAA revis­ing his­toric tem­per­a­ture data for Maine–as always, to make the past look cooler […]

  8. Valerie Weiss

    Just wondering where this $27 billion figure actually came from…”Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.”

  9. Mikky

    Sadly this looks like another of the “big adjustments, so must be wrong” stories. To say something is wrong you have to come up with an alternative set of results, which involves a lot of work looking at the history of temperature measurement systems and locations in use in the region of interest, AND comparison of data at many nearby stations to establish the local climatology.

    1. DirkH

      “To say something is wrong you have to come up with an alternative set of results”

      No we don’t. Wrong is the default assumption whenever warmunists do anything. THEY have to give a good reason why what they’re doing is RIGHT – because it has not happened yet.

  10. David A

    These 2013 adjustments are not related to TOB. They are way to severe as well.

  11. David A

    correction, 2013 adjustments.

    Also they are continuing, with no explanation whatsoever;
    Bill Illis WUWT comment…
    “Here are the changes made to GISS temperatures on just one day this February. Yellow is the new temperature assumption and strikeout is the previous number. Almost every single monthly temperature record from 1880 to 1950 was adjusted down by 0.01C.

    I mean every freaking month is history suddenly got 0.01C colder. What the heck changed that made the records in 1880 0.01C colder. Did the old thermometer readers screw up that bad?
    http://s2.postimg.org/eclux0yl5/GISS_Global_Adjustments_Feb_14_2015.png
    GISS’ data comes from the NCDC so the NCDC carried out the same adjustments. They have been doing this every month since about 1999. So 16 years times 12 months/year times -0.01C of adjustments each month equals -1.92C of fake adjustments.

    Lots of opportunity to create a fake warming signal. In fact, by now it is clear that 1880 was so cold that all of the crops failed and all of the animals froze and all of the human race starved to death or froze to death and we went extinct. 135 years ago today.”

  12. Jay

    Yes these adjustments are outrageous and should be investigated.

    But your first table that shows the adjustments in degrees and then a percentage should be changed.
    Temperature changes in percent have NO valid scientific meaning. Especially in Celsius or Fahrenheit.

    Maybe if you use absolute temperatures (Kelvin) percent might have some meaning.

  13. A Prediction Coming True? | Water

    […] Pierre Gosselin of NoTricksZone has a post by Mike Brakey on NOAA adjustments of the temperature record of Lewiston-Auburn, Maine. In short, the NOAA are shameless liars. Their cooling of the past to keep the global warming meme alive reminds me of the old Soviet joke – the future is known, it is the past that keeps changing. The NOAA can’t be accused of not thinking big. They lowered the average temperature of Lewiston-Auburn in 1913 by 4.0°F (2.2°C). But the perversion and corruption of the temperature record to serve dark ends is something that we are inured to. One of Mr Brakey’s complaints about the NOAA perversion of the temperature record is that he can’t trust official figures any more in serving his clients. […]

  14. NOAA Caught [Again] Changing Temperatures ~ Criminal! | Religio-Political Talk (RPT)

    […] Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine–as always, to make the past look cooler and the […]