By Michael Brakey
Unbeknownst to most Mainers, on May 6 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) admitted to introducing Canadian weather stations to dramatically lower Maine’s past temperature averages over a 120-year time period.
In the federal government’s hysteria to preserve the mantra of continuous global warming, NOAA carved out a summed total of more than 2540F from annual mean temperatures of Maine climate past between 1895 and the present.
Shock! NOAA makes southern Maine colder than northern Maine!
NOAA’s computer reprogramming scheme accidentally made southern Maine appear colder than northern Maine. Oops! This serves as yet one more example of fantasy climate manipulation. Common-sense Mainers can verify this at NOAA’s latest website, or see addendum at the end of this report.
Bangor 2015 sees coldest 6-month period on record!
There are several inconvenient truths that fly in the face of NOAA’s altered data. In 2015, Maine’s Penobscot Bay froze completely over for possibly only the sixth time since 1893. The Bangor’s Daily News just reported that Bangor set a record for low temperatures, experiencing a teeth-chattering average of only 340F (approximately 6,023 Heating Degree Days) over the first six months of 2015!
Lewiston likely to break 111-year record
Local Lewiston climate records indicate the southern interior region will likely break a 111-year old climate record established in 1904 of 41.20F. In the first six months of 2015, Lewiston has recorded 5,368 HDD. The Lewiston region only requires 3,332 more HDD by December 31, 2015 to break the 111-record old record for cold temperatures.
Recent volcanic eruptions by Iceland’s Bardarbunga (August 16, 2014-March 2, 2015) will continue to have a cooling effect on Maine weather for the balance of 2015 and all of 2016, assuring the likelihood of a climate cooling record this year. Temperatures could challenge the 1904 Lewiston, Maine record as the coldest year based on local records kept since 1893.
By the spring of 2014, NOAA had eliminated all possibility of Maine establishing cooling climate records (To be explained in an upcoming post). If the Lewiston region were to even hit 41.20F (8,700 HDD), NOAA could proclaim 2015 to be Maine’s 101st warmest year in history.
Mainers urged to dismiss NOAA on energy decisions
Local climate data confirms we have been experiencing regional cooling since 1998. Mainers should be encouraged to insulate and seek less expensive sources of residential and business heating, such as natural gas, heat pumps, geothermal and future technologies associated with thorium and hydrogen. However, based on NOAA’s revised data, indicating a continuous warming trend, out-of-state lobbyists are encouraging Federal funding of more expensive electric generation with wind and solar.
Corrupted science
In my opinion, NOAA has been corrupted by politicians with expensive climate agendas. Maine decision makers must first verify my claims and upon being proven valid, avoid NOAA climate data for setting present and future energy policy. Until NOAA is purged of corrupted political appointees, it is important to gather climate data from other non-governmental sources to make sound energy decisions.
Addendum
COLOSSAL oops on NOAA’s part.
The information below was taken from NOAA’s climate website found at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/true.
Below we entered identical parameters for Maine, 2015 with the exception that the left hand column requests “Statewide” Heating Degree Day (HDD) data whereas the right hand option requests CD2 South Interior Maine Heating Degree Day (HDD). Higher HDD values reflect colder temperatures. Over the last 119 years, NOAA data now indicates southern Maine has brought down Maine temperatures by 109 HDD or about 1/3 0F per year. This is a colossal error that can only happen with computer algorithm errors. NOAA, just present us raw, unfiltered data.
Really amazing stuff… Our “local” Raleigh, NC, newspaper yesterday noted that “Europe” temperatures were ~100° (F), never mentioning that this was just part of a brief heat wave (last post). Just to leave the impression that AGW was real.
And, in this post, once again, NOAA has provided us with “incorrect” and misleading data to show that Maine is warming.
It is my hope that this whole corrupt charade implodes soon in a manner that will leave it unable to resurrect itself…or have any else do it, for that matter.
Thanks, Pierre, for keeping us informed.
There’s much more coming later today… stay tuned.
Hmmm… Look forward to it.
If you promote thorium based on hoped for technological advances that make it feasible and economic you could just as easily apply that logic to wind or solar as the CAGW crowd does.
Better to stick with reality not pie in the sky.
atheo, we know that Solar is continuously improved; lab cells achieve 53% conversion rate already.
I have always maintained that PV drops in price by half every decade since 1970 – stubbornly independent of whether politicians subsidize it somewhere or not.
This does not change the fact that Germany currently squanders 24 bn EUR a year on subsidies for Solar and Wind.
Why is that necessary? It’s a completely deluded waste. Even if the warmunists were right about the future, it doesn’t even DO anything to prevent that future.
Now, we could assume that our politicians have a cunning secret plan that justifies it, maybe strategic energy independence, only, the energy production is ridiculously low (2% of German primary energy consumption), the cost ridiculously high, so the conclusion must be that German politicians are reidiculously inept (probably related to Berlin’s Meth consumption).
Dirk,
I’m sure that, for Germany, strategic energy independence is the first motive. One only has to consider the fact that the US navy rules the sea lanes upon which oil travels to Germany.
The question of a US motive for wind and solar is perhaps more involved.
Nonetheless, relying on any trend to continue indefinitely is a sure road to ruin. There is a 100% probability that solar will not continue to drop in price by half every decade. Rear view mirrors are only good for so much. But you are correct that subsidy will not hasten its becoming more economic.
“Why is that necessary?”
Because coal, oil and natural gas have huge negative externalities, and these costs are socialized onto the public.
In the US, they were at least $120 billion in 2005, in 2007 dollars:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
David Appell says:
9. July 2015 at 4:01 AM
“Because coal, oil and natural gas have huge negative externalities, and these costs are socialized onto the public.”
How about asking the public:
Do you want to pay for those “huge external negativities” AND have heat in the winter (an even huger positive externality in left-speak),
or do you want to freeze to death?
David, have you ever asked yourself WHY it is that AFTER starting to use coal, our standard of living and life expectancy exploded – if coal is so bad?
Well I know you haven’t, so why haven’t you? Is there absolutely no remnant of reason left in you? Why is that?
“I have always maintained that PV drops in price by half every decade since 1970 – stubbornly independent of whether politicians subsidize it somewhere or not.”
This claim is obviously false. So why are those producing computer chips constantly doing research and improvements, when all they have to do is to wait for everything to get cheaper?!?
Why is solar PV cheaper to install in Germany than in the USA, which has much more sun? ( subsidies)
In the real world, even those producing coal and nuclear power have started to understand that solar PV is cheaper and are starting to change their business:
“But its big focus is on the international scene. Gerard Mestrallet, the CEO of Engie, one of the biggest operators of nuclear plants in Europe, says new solar now beats new nuclear on price, with new solar parks costing between $US60 and $US90/MWh.”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/hazelwood-owner-makes-big-push-into-solar-energy-63891
Repeat after me: solar is CHEAPER than new nuclear!
Some numbers about the extinction of raptors worldwide by wind turbines in this Breitbart article.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/study-wind-farms-even-more-expensive-and-pointless-than-you-thought/
Why do UN Warmunists hate wildlife so much?
Isn’t it interesting how many became bird enthusiasts right when the wind turbines went up?
By the way, coal and oil kill far more birds than do wind or solar. Data here:
https://notrickszone.com/2011/03/24/nuclear-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-opposition-is-a-glaring-denial-of-reality/#sthash.OoT4N9LZ.dpbs
David, I don’t need no stinking windturbine to admire a Red Kite. I know a wind turbine free valley near Hildesheim where they can still be found.
Great beautiful birds, especially given the fact that all of West Germany is populated as densely as the American East Coast; we should cherish what little of wildlife left we have.
Also, your Leftist superbrain doesn’t quite catch the distinction between a rare raptor and say a chicken, right? As all you talk about is absolute numbers of “birds”. So let’s turn that around – your fellow travelers have bemoaned the fate of the cuddly Polar Bear for decades (while the bears were growing in numbers in the real world) – so even if Polar Bears WERE threatened, we could just replace them by an equal number of lab rats we can produce to offset it, right?
“the distinction between a rare raptor and say a chicken”
or a lice infested pigeon, or a cockroach like starling.
These are the birds that DA relates to. It is his natural habitat.
Pierre, you’re censoring comments again — comments at a time after mine are being allowed, while mine don’t appear.
Censoring comments is an admission you can’t deal wtih real debate.
Dear David,
As I explained to you on numerous occasions comments have to await moderation. And because I have other things going on in life, sometimes it takes a bit of time. Because of the attitude you showed with the above non-sensical accusation, I’ve just decided to in fact delete the latest flurry of comments, which are spam-like anyway (your earlier comments I approved and they remain). Just learn courtesy and you’ll be allowed to join the discussion here. No one here appreciates your closed-minded, arrogant, know-it-all attitude. You are like the Varoufakis of climate blogging.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bangor is a very small town, isn’t it? (Yes it is — I’ve been there more than once.)
Meanwhile, the Pacific NW is broiling, and has been since early June.
Is there some reason you didn’t mention that, and instead choose to focus on a small town in Maine?
Oh yeah — warmest June in the records for both Oregon and California. (I haven’t looked for Washington yet.)
Meanwhile the only REAL temperature data in the USA, USCRN since 2005, shows a COOLING trend.
Anything else is a FARCE.. like you.
“NOAA, just present us raw, unfiltered data.”
The raw data has well known inhomogenities and biases. NOAA does its best to correct for them.
How would you correct for them?
The only EAL data in the USA shows COOLING since 2005.
Anything else is a CAGW fabrication.
You really don’t have one single piece of un-corrupted data to rely on do you, slimo !!
Go back to writing climate fiction for a third rate rag.. its where you belong.
The only REAL data……
NOAA does their best to bend them to the AGW agenda.
Karl and Gavin into action !!
UAH also shows COOLING for the USA since 2005.
Only the massively CORRUPTED data of Karl an Gavin shows ANY warming.
You know all about CORRUPTION, don’t you DA.. it is your life, it is what you are.