Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History

A bit on the long side, but stunning to say the least. Energy physicist Mike Brakey tells us why he is not surprised the NOAA might be investigated by Congress. (Sticky post – new posts below). 

The “Trick” to Controlling the Climate Agenda
By Mike Brakey

Brakey_1Last April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled, Black Swan Climate Theory [1] (BSCT) irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms [2]) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record. The image above is from the new YouTube series posted after NOAA’s acknowledgement that they had indeed made improvements to Maine’s climate history.

On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, [3 ] reported in Black Swan Climate Theory [4] (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words [5]:

…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

Brakey_2NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past climate history was highly fishy, to say the least. I decided to rework the research parameters to eliminate possible Canadian temperature infusion and confusion. Rather than compare my archived data for Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (Zone 19) to NOAA’s “statewide” [6] data for 32 Zones as I did in BSCT, I limited my analysis to NOAA’s southern interior data (CD 2) [7]. Since Lewiston/Auburn is centered in NOAA’s Maine southern interior climate region (see blue region of state chart), the two sets of numbers should essentially be identical. However, as I theorize, my findings again suggest NOAA is using a computer algorithm to inflate heating degree-days with all the raw climate data processed by an average of more than 10 percent.

This new approach is documented on our new narrated PowerPoint series, Black Swan Climate Theory II [8] (BSCTII). It will be posted on YouTube by early June 2015. Here are some of the highlights of our findings.

Incredible discrepancy

There remained an incredible discrepancy of Heating Degree Days (HDD) between the two southern interior Maine data sets.


The green-shaded area of the above chart to the right represents NOAA’s HDD values for the southern interior region of Maine, which I downloaded in May 2015. The black bars represent the raw HDD data that I gathered for Lewiston/Auburn over the last 10 years. I observed negligible difference between NOAA’s data for southern interior Maine and for the entire state of Maine. The annual average HDD’s for 1895 to 2014 were:

* 7,565 based on the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn;
* 8,276 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the entire state of Maine; and
* 8,381 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the southern interior region of Maine (105 HDD colder than statewide! See NOAA table below).


Flawed NOAA algorithms

I expected the HDD’s for the state’s entire 32 zones to be greater than for Lewiston/Auburn’s Zone 19 because the statewide NOAA data includes the vast colder regions in the northern part of the state. However, NOAA’s published 2015 data indicates the southern interior region of Maine runs 0.288°F colder on average over the last 119 years! This points out another of many flaws in the NOAA data when an agency begins relying on computer algorithms over basic clean data from Mother Nature.

As I lay out my case in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA adjusted the data for all of Maine and for the southern interior region using the same algorithm shown in the first chart. NOAA’s HDD adjustments were kept small in the most recent decade then grew substantially in earlier decades of the 19th and 20th centuries.


The chart above is drawn from BSCTII, Part 3 of 6, YouTube presentation [9]. In the presentation, step-by-step, I compared the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn to NOAA’s data for the state of Maine. I was able to discern the two algorithms that I believe NOAA implemented in 2011 and in 2014. Mother Nature’s data is the solid black line in the chart. Deviations from Mother Nature is shown as the blue line (percentage adjustment detected in 2013 archived data); the red line shows the percentage adjustment made in 2014 (detected in 2015). The green line is the master algorithm, the net effect of the two adjustments (blue and red lines).

I speculate that NOAA intended to quietly rewrite climate history over two programming runs (2011 and 2014). Each would lower historical temperatures a total of approximately 130°F.

I speculate that computer programming errors were discovered internally by NOAA after the 2011 algorithm was launched. NOAA decreased the 1913 HDD by 10% as opposed to increasing it by that amount. NOAA made 1913 one of the hottest years in Maine’s history. They eventually corrected that error and others with their 2014 algorithm run. I was not the first to catch this major faux pas.

Joseph D’Aleo, did a paper in 2014, involving Farmington, Maine data in southern interior Zone 13. The title of his effort was “Data Set Changes Makes It Hard to Tell Real Story” [10]. He complained of a 5°F swing in 1913 for NOAA’s southern interior data. In my April study, I had detected a 4°F swing for 1913 based on statewide archived NOAA data.

Maine’s history made a total of 254°F cooler

The 2011 algorithm lowered Maine “statewide” temperatures around 103°F. The Phase II algorithm run in 2014 corrected the 1913 error and lowered overall temperatures an additional 151°F. I contend that the master algorithm is now fully operational and maintains that Maine’s statewide climate history is over 254°F lower than the original documented records between 1895 and 2014!

As detailed in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA has attempted to maintain a number of the climate “inflection points” for authenticity while minimizing or completely eliminating all but one cooling period between 1895 and 2014. Drawn from BSCTII, Part 5 of 6, YouTube presentation [11] the following chart shows originally three Black Swan events [12] found with the Lewiston-Auburn data (the black line) provided by Mother Nature.


Three have been reduced to a single Black Swan event on the NOAA data (the green line) from 2014 for the southern interior region of Maine. Based on this and many other revelations found in BSCTII, I concluded that NOAA’s explanation of the inclusion of Canadian data was not only fishy—it proved to be a red herring [13].

“NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data”

Based on these findings, my ongoing working theory is that NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data through single master computer algorithm. The master algorithm array serves as the “trick” to hide present and future Black Swan [14] regional cooling events in Maine. I have also found that identical tweaks were being made with the other individual states and United State as a whole. It is being done by consistently lowering historical temperatures on all processed climate data controlled by NOAA as will be illustrated below with archived data from 2013.


Algorithm applied nationwide…2014 a fabricated record

The graphs above illustrate how I contend NOAA applied a master algorithm “trick” not only to Maine, but to the United States as a whole. The green graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2013 for Maine and the U.S. The blue graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2015 for the same two locations. As you can see, the HDD have been inflated in both cases by the same percentages. In 2014, it appears NOAA had completed cooling both Maine and U.S. climate history by increasing HDD over 5%. This permitted NOAA to lower historical temperatures in excess of 10% between 1895 and 2014. Now NOAA and government agencies could announce to the world that 2014 was one of the warmest years in U.S. (revised) history.

Ohio adjusted as well

Another example includes NOAA’s data associated with Ohio. The green graph below shows NOAA’s data for Ohio prior to its 2014 adjustment (but after the 2011 adjustment).


The blue shows the data after that adjustment. This second adjustment reduced Ohio’s historical temperatures by 83.8°F. You can see that it is the same pattern of adjustment as in Maine and the United States as a whole. I wonder if they needed Canadian meter stations here also!

NOAA’s data associated with Tennessee increased 18,802 HDD between 2013 and 2014. This reduced Tennessee’s historical temperature record an additional 51.5°F.

What is NOAA’s rational for the major correction here? The pattern is the same.
Based on my research to date, I have concluded that:

Whosoever holds the algorithm for interpreting and documenting past climate history possess the power to shape a nation’s perception of present climate and the funding solutions. Are we experiencing global warming or global cooling? It depends on whose historical climate data we are examining!

NOAA admitted to rewriting temperature

I want to emphasize again that NOAA admitted to massive rewrites of Maine “statewide” history on May 6, 2015. NOAA indicated all these changes to include Canadian stations were necessary to make sure the data truly reflected Maine history over the last 120 years.

How do they explain similar adjustments to Maine’s southern interior region, Tennessee, Ohio and the United States as a whole?

Every U.S. state for which I kept archived NOAA data had been corrupted in an identical manner. At this point in time, my theory that NOAA is rewriting U.S. climate history with a computer algorithm appears to still be valid.


I contend that the NOAA computer program essentially uses a very simple algorithm array, that automatically takes each historical year of local data and “shapes it” to fit into an overall mosaic NOAA wants to project to the scientific community and the general public.


The table below lists “Year”, “NOAA Master Algorithm Adjustment”, and the “Anti-Master Algorithm”.


The Anti-Master algorithm is nothing more than the reciprocal of NOAA’s algorithm.

This entire affair seems reminiscent of the early 1990s. The following chart below shows the multiple warming and cooling (Black Swan) periods over the last 1,100 years.


In 1990, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the graph seen in Chart 1. It showed that the Middle Ages were warmer than today, in what was called the “Medieval Warming Period”. Then, around the 14th century, society begins its descent into a series of “Black Swan” cooling climate events. We plunged into the “Little Ice Age” period from which we gradually emerged in the early 1700s. There were at least five major Black Swan events over this time period.

In the late 1990s Michael Mann published Chart 2 which redefined climate history and eliminated numerous Black Swan events. A Congressional investigation uncovered numerous errors in Mann’s chart and the IPCC dropped it from the Summary of Policymakers for its 2007 report. Unfortunately, the false hockey stick is still cited by advocates of the “science-is settled” position [15]. This includes powerful members of NOAA and the current U.S. administration.

Are we now remaking American climate history to adhere to Mann’s disappearing hockey stick? I have theorized that NOAA has possibly attempted a similar approach for inconvenient climate history in Maine and across the United States.

The following chart shows the result of applying NOAA’s algorithm to the Lewiston-Auburn, Maine data (the black line). The result is NOAA’s green line.


In the transformation you eliminate two of the three Black Swans. This chart thereafter falls in line with Michael Mann’s chart from the late 1990’s that cited only one Black Swan event in the last hundred years.

My theory is that, if you begin with NOAA’s “adjusted” data and apply the anti-algorithm, you return the “processed data” back to how Mother Nature provided us the information in the first place.

USA likely in a state of cooling since 1990s

As a last example, on the chart below, we will take NOAA’s “processed” data for the United States climate history and apply the “anti-algorithm array” (see table above).


The application of the anti-algorithm would indicate the United States, as a whole, might have been in a state of regional cooling since the late 1990s, as is presently true of Maine when you use Mother Nature’s original data.

“…certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers”

If my theory is proven correct, it would mean certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers of the U.S. and around the world. It has added up to trillions of dollars over the decade. [16]

As noted in BSCT and BSCTII, I play a short video clip of Doctor Feynman explaining how theories are generated and how they should be tested repeatedly.


We expect no less here. I welcome a thorough examination of my algorithm theory.

In Black Swan Climate Theory II we explain, in depth, why, in my opinion, I believe this is not an accident. I have concluded American basic climate data has been hijacked and corrupted within NOAA through the use of a simple master computer algorithm that I have repeated here.

Brakey_14Profound implications

Based on the evidence from Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and consolidated U.S. climate data presented in the BSCT series; and should my theory be validated, the implications are profound. It would indicate we presently live in a nation where an agency of the Federal government has taken it upon themselves to rewrite the history of climate for the fifty different individual states of the Union.

If my theory proves correct, billions of dollars of climate data has been corrupted within a formerly great organization. Worse, decisions worth trillions of dollars are being made presently on fraudulent climate data. As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data provided by Mother Nature.

Throw the environmental activists [17] out! The litmus test for me is when NOAA’s climate data agrees with both satellite data and local archived data.


[1] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, 1st series of five (5) short YouTube videos on NOAA climate adjustments

[2] A computer program can be viewed as an elaborate algorithm. In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm usually means a small procedure that solves a recurrent problem. I contend NOAA has been attempting to correct a climate aberration that Mother Nature has repeatedly thrown at the organization since 1998. These inconvenient aberrations are pockets of regional cooling in Maine, across the United States and likely around the world between 1998 and 2010!

[3] 151 Degrees of Fudging, May 2, 2015, Mike Brakey, Link:

[4] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, series of five (5) short YouTube videos on recently discovered NOAA climate adjustments that rewrote Maine climate history –

[5] NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large Scale Rewrite of U.S. Temperature Data, May 6, 2015, Mr. Derek Arndt, NOAA, Link:

[6] NOAA classifies Maine heating degree days under four divisions. They are Statewide CD 1 North CD 2 South Interior, and CD 3 Coastal.

[7] Unlike “statewide” and “CD 1 North” this region, “CD 2 South Interior” should have no reason to be subject to Canadian temperature contamination.

[8] Black Swan Climate Theory II, Michael Brakey, June, 2015. The six part PowerPoint YouTube series is also found at the following link: The presentation takes you step-by-step through how it appears that leadership in NOAA unashamedly created a new master algorithm that was applied to the Maine data to rewrite climate history.

[9] See link:


[11] See Link:

[12] A Black Swan event is a significant cooling period of more than ten years.

[13] red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

[14] or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

[15] The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon, 2008, Richard Vigilante Books, Chapter 2, The Case of the Disappearing Hockey Stick. pp. 9-21.

[16] The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria, Larry Bell, Forbes, August, 2011; See link:

[17] Robber Barons disparaging term dating back to the 12th century which refers to: 1. Unscrupulous feudal lords who amassed personal fortunes by using illegal and immoral business practices. 2. In social criticism and economic literature, became a derogatory term applied to some wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen. Does it now apply to the leaders of the environmental movement?


40 responses to “Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History”

  1. Mark Stoval

    NOAA’s corruption and fraud reminds me of a saying by Joseph Stalin of the old USSR. “It does not matter who votes; what matters is who counts the votes”. (paraphrased from memory)

    NOAA intends to do “the counting”.

  2. DirkH

    The best part is, according to the NOAA warmunists, it was not only friggin cold 100 years back – but those were the HAPPY times! Warmunists are so funny.

  3. Ric Werme

    I suppose I need to lookat it a bit more closely, but some of the adjustments seem a bit large. 🙂

    E.g. “Maine’s history made 254°F cooler”

    Is that off by a factor of 1000, I also see “However, NOAA’s published 2015 data indicates the southern interior region of Maine runs 0.288°F.”

  4. Joe Chang

    “improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time”
    A naive person might foolishly think the dataset was what was observed.

    1. lemiere jacques


  5. Bernd Felsche

    Looks like WordPress botched much of the import.

    Stuff like: Maine’s history made 254°F cooler

    Better check that all the numbers any dropped decimal point.

    As a student, I learnt to never write numbers with just a leading decimal point. To always put the zero before the decimal point.

  6. Mindert Eiting

    Yes, he took the sum of deviations in order to get that impressive Fahrenheit number. It would have sufficed to report slope of regression before and after the adaptations. I am not impressed by this article. Could have been shorter with less rhetoric.

    1. Jason Calley

      Witness: “Sheriff! Sheriff! Mad Dog Mulligan just rode in and he’s tearing up the town!”

      Sheriff: “I am not impressed. Your statement strikes me as hyperbolic. Maybe if you spoke in a more acceptable fashion I would investigate…”

      Yeah, maybe we are being defrauded out of billions of dollars, but I am waiting for a report about it that appeals more to my stylistic taste. (end sarc)

      Ahem… Good job, Mike! The Powers That Be have been pushing this fraud way too long!

  7. A C Osborn

    Is he going to supply the before & After Data to the GWPF Temperature Enquiry?

  8. sod

    i would call this bomb a dud.

    This is a pretty wild accusation (massive manipulation) without any real evidence beyond the changes, which are well explained as an improvement of problematic raw data.

    1. DirkH

      Well obviously it is NOAA that has no real evidence, as they themselves say that they must correct all data before it is kosher for “scientists” to digest.

      If they had to correct Maine a 100 years ago by 5 deg F, then how can they be so sure today is not 5 deg F cooler than they think.

      Rethorical question of course – data in the hands of a wamunist does what the warmunist wants, and all adjustments cool the past and warm the present, never the opposite (so we know a warmunist is never a scientist but always a liar).

      1. BobW in NC

        If these “warmunists” were true scientists, who seek what the “real” world is all about, they would adjust ONLY according to where the monitor was located according to published standards ( ). These individuals want nothing to do with science, only power and control, and shamelessly lie and deceive to obtain that.

  9. R Lentz

    Thisarticle makes me wonder why all of the HDD data has disappeared from the internet. about 12 years ago I was considering a Heat-Pump for heating. I decided that the HDD information would give mea good estimate of the energy needed and a good comparison of actual costs in relation to where I live. It was easy to find HDD data going back to the 1940’s and even earlier for some cities. The use of this data helped me get a true comparison as to weather I actual saved money over using NG for fuel, as I had a true measure of how much energy was needed.
    Several years ago, after deciding that Climate Change was a SCAM I did a internet search for this data again. I felt that if US was “warming” then the HDD would decrease and the CDD would increase over the years. All the HDD/CDD data I could find was just the newer data, 1970 to date data. After many attempts of trying to find the older, original, data from NWS, I gave up. Individual states and some cities had some sites providing the old data but NWS no longer had the old, original scanned pages of HDD. Where did it go? Why was it taken away?

  10. GlennDC

    All, the “254 degrees added” for clarity should be labeled “Heating Degree Days” a measure power and energy companies use to quantify energy consumption to compensate for colder weather. The Southern equivalent is “Cooling degree days.” Herr Gosselin is correct. Read more carefully, and Brakey, label clearly, please.

    I also think this is motivated reasoning, not malicious fraud. Feynman also said “…the easiest person to fool is yourself (paraphrase).” Process goes like this: 1) this can’t be right; 2) lets check neighboring stations; rinse and repeat until the answer agrees with your expectations.

    Cheers, from Houston Texas, where the 80+ days of consecutive highs over 100 degrees Farenheit in the summer of 1980 disappeared from NOAA data.

    1. DirkH

      The warmunists are not fooling themselves. They have profits to make from Global Warming panic.

  11. Duke Silver

    I live in this region and can verify that the temps have been dropping over the last decade. Our short (90 day) growing season has grown a week shorter and is noticeable by anyone who lives (and grows) in the region. My woodstove is working today (2June15) with an outside temp of 47.

    I too had noticed the difference in measured temps and reported HDDs but hadn’t compiled the data for a study.

    Good work, Mike. Keep the pressure on for a return to reporting based on data not fiction.

  12. AndyG55

    This “algorithm” will likely be the same one used by climate manipulators all around the world.
    CRU, GISS, NOAA, BOM, NIWA etc etc etc

  13. BobW in NC

    Dr. Feynman’s one quote is stunning, and applies to so much (not all, certainly of today’s science):

    “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

    AGW is the poster child that exemplifies what Dr. Feynman said.

  14. Dan Pangburn

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. The science is solid. Fudging the numbers hasn’t hidden the proof. Only existing data and the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change are at (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured data, R2 = 0.97+ since before 1900)

    1. BobW in NC

      Dan, How frustrating that real science such as you post is totally ignored in favor of an ideology! Thank you so much. I have bookmarked your site.

    2. AndyG55

      Dan, what is your “Normalised Measured Anomaly” in Figure 1 based on?

      I do hope you are not using HadCrud or Giss.

      1. Dan Pangburn

        BobW – Stay tuned.

        Andy – The short paper at describes how it’s done. All 4 agencies that report back far enough are included. They all look fairly similar except for reference temperature.

        There has been some fudging of the numbers lately. Hadcrut4 is recent (through 2012 as reported in 2014) for Figure 1.1 only. All the others use reported data as of 2012.

        The last HadCRUT3 report was in 2013 so if calibration of the equation is done using data later than that, appropriate action will need to be taken.

        1. AndyG55

          Four siblings, in direct collusion.
          Sorry, but of course they are similar.

          That doesn’t mean they are anywhere near correct.

          I guess in leau of reality, they will have to do.

          1. Dan Pangburn

            True, they all draw from the same data base. But they do process the data differently.

            They compare reasonably well with satellite based measurements as shown at . It doesn’t matter much as long as they are consistent in the way they determine the numbers because it is the relative values that matter. I am on-the-watch for hanky-panky.

          2. AndyG55

            Let’s not forget where the “memo/directive” to get rid of the 1940’s peak originated. Tom Wigley, CRU (Now at Adelaide Uni). and it first started to disappear at NOAA/NCDC.. They are heavily in cahoots.

            Its that now missing peak and the “revised” warming trend before the satellite record that is the major question.

            You cannot assume that just because the satellite data put a brake on how much they manipulated the data since 1979, that the fabrication pre-1979 is at all close to reality.

  15. Buddy Tumbarello

    Clearly…..97% of climate scientists are in “cahoots” on lying about the temperature. Also….they must be in cahoots with the Arctic ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet, and the Greenland ice sheet……which ALL have lost significant volume over the last 100 years.

    And then there is those pesky glaciers…..around the world….which have lost volume over the last 100 years.

    I tell you…..those darn scientists and their “tricks”. They are a sneaky bunch…..:)

    1. AndyG55

      Oh, You mean in the slight warming since the LIA.?

      Let’s totally ignore the rest of the Holocene when temperatures were good couple of degrees warmer, and when when Arctic ice levels were almost certainly a lot lower.

      Let’s even ignore the MWP and RWP, both of which were warmer by a degree or so.

      Let’s base ALL our scary melting and warm-mongering on a short period out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

      1. David Johnson

        The lives of people like Buddy would be left with no meaning if you took away their belief that they are, “saving the planet”. Don’t be too harsh on him 😉

    2. AndyG55

      And let’s also pretend that a very localised melting of the Western Peninsula in Antarctic is due to “global” warming, while the rest of Antarctica gains mass.

      Let’s also ignore the fact that the slight warming has actually CEASED for something like 18+ years.

    3. DirkH

      Buddy Tumbarello says:
      3. June 2015 at 11:33 PM
      “Clearly…..97% of climate scientists are in “cahoots” on lying about the temperature.”

      Well, no. The 97% number itself is a fraud. (Cook forged it with his SkS buddies in a totally ludicrous way without even asking any scientists).

      As you spread this lie, you are either entirely deluded or, a warmunist agitator.

      Why do you run around spreading lies? What’s your goal? Are you also profiting from warmunist taxpayer money theft?

  16. Scott

    Have you done a FOIA request for the un-edited data?

  17. Dan Pangburn

    The proof that CO2 has no influence on average global temperature which is described in a separate section of will eventually end the nonsense that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

    The temperature downtrend will eventually end the discussion about ice melting and possibly initiate a new discussion about spreading famine.

  18. AndyG55

    Lets put things into some real perspective.
    The GISP ice core data is almost certainly a good proxy for Arctic temperature change

    See that little molehill on the far right, that is the so-called “warming” that alarmista base their “warm-mongering” on. Pathetic isn’t it !!!!

    But as you can clearly see, ITS STILL RATHER COLD relative to the rest of the Holocene, just a fraction of a degree out of the long cold of the Little Ice Age.

    Most of the last 10,000 years has been 2 -3ºC WARMER, even surpassing the “dreaded” (lol) 2ºC warming tipping point several times, Arctic ice would have been open for significant periods each year, and unlike now, the Arctic would have been navigable for at least some portion of the year.. Fishing , trade etc would have been possible. Now the only passage is a maybe route with a powerful icebreaker.

    Much higher temperatures through 97% of the last 10,000 years…
    And the Earth is still here.. Humanity and life on Earth survives, and in fact PROSPERED during that warmer 80-90% of the last 10, 000 years. The warm peaks of the RWP, MWP and Minoan were times of abundance and growth.

    Now lets look back a little big further.

    This is what they really want? seriously?

  19. ‘AGW’ Added Temperatures - Capitol Hill Outsider

    […] Depot’s Mark Morano shows how Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying ‘Master Algorithm’ To Whitewash Temperat…. Energy Physicist Mike Brakey writes us why he is not surprised about NOAA’s congressional […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy