Cooling/Temperature

NOAA Record June Heat Claims Dismissed! “In Independent Datasets We See Widespread Model Failures” Says Expert Meteorologist

Posted by P Gosselin on July 21, 2015
Activism, Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team / 21 Comments

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

NOAA conflict of interest? “The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating reports and running some greenhouse models are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2015 results are out and once again the government-directed institute is  claiming the globe is at a record high temperature while the other independent global temperature datasets are telling a very different story.

The NOAA claims that the global surface temperature reached a new all-time record high with an anomaly +0.88°C – the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880!

However measurements taken by satellite Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show that although June 2015 indeed was a warm month at +0.39°C, it was only the 4th warmest June ever, and more than 30 other earlier months have seen greater positive anomalies.

Satellite data (revised) taken by the University of Alabama in Huntsville UAH show that the June 2015 temperature anomaly was +0.31°C, a warm month but not the hottest June ever as three other June months were as warm or warmer.

Moreover plots of the RSS and UAH data continue to show that global temperatures have been flat for now close to 20 years:
wood4trees 2015

Chart: woodfortrees.org/

Even the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCrut) in England shows no temperature increase over the period.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Yet no one at the NOAA has gotten the idea that maybe their data and results have gone awry and that they’d be wise to look for what is causing it.

When asked what they thought of the NOAA June result, 2 expert meteorologists suggest that there’s probably more to it than faulty computational methodology and that it may have to do with scientists milking out the results they want.

When asked about the NOAA results, former Accuweather veteran meteorologist and now chief meteorologist at Weatherbell Analytics Joe Bastardi expressed serious doubts on the NOAA June results. In an e-mail he commented:

NCEP real time data, computed every 6 hours from model input shows no such thing. It is available to the public at weatherbell.com/temperature.php. […] How is it the NCEP data, where NCEP is a part of NOAA, show no such warming? […]Moreover using NCEP data May, 2015, was the NINTH warmist, not the first, and June looks like 5th since 1998.”

NCEP2015

2015, NOAA’s NCEP data show no records occurring.

Long-time meteorologist Joe D’aleo was more blunt about the suspicious NOAA data, writing that there’s probably on conflict of interest where the climate modelers also happen to be the data-crunchers. D’Aleo wrote in reply to an e-mail inquiry (my emphasis):

The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating the reports about the climate (USGCRP, State of the Climate, EPA TSD, IPPC) and running some of the greenhouse models that project the scary scenarios (NOAA and downstream NASA) are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts. The actual data should be constructed independently of the forecasts with people who do not have a financial and personal interest in seeing their forecasts verify. Indeed we see in the independent datasets like the satellite and balloon based ones, widespread model failures.

There is a lot of control available for modelers to predict a desired result, and data source inconsistencies allow NOAA to be creative – and the result is a hybrid of data and models (with their adjustments like TOA, infilling and homogenization) to show whatever the puppet-masters in government require. It may be that some really believe in their science and work hard to mine the data, achieving a form of bias confirmation. In other cases it is ideologically or politically driven or a matter of job security.”no

Mid-July Frost Surprises Central Europe This Morning!

Posted by P Gosselin on July 10, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Weather / 17 Comments

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

After the European heat wave of last week, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.

Currently the weather pattern dominating Central Europe is bringing unusually cold air over the continent, and early this morning regions in a number of countries were hit by ground surface frost.

Parts of Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic saw surface frost – even down to the lower elevations (Belgium is hardly a mountainous region).

German site Wetter24 twittered here a map depicting the frosty areas gripping this 10th of July, 2015. Also see map here.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann here writes and supplies a link showing a German video reporting conditions that the German Eifel region woke up to early this morning. At the 1:50 mark the video reports:

We saw fields that were snow-white. That on the tenth of July I have never seen before. My colleague Fabian had also never seen this before. It just looked wonderful. We just thought that indeed we are not in autumn or spring; we are actually in July. These pictures impressed us, and that we found this frost.”

Apparently the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 was unable to trap the heat and prevent frost from forming at ground level.

Yesterday Aonach Mor and Strathallan in Scotland saw frost. So did Blackpool and Exeter in England!

Central Europe and Great Britain were not the only places at the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere that saw frosty conditions. ABC News here reports that “Tioga Pass was closed from 4 miles west of Jct 395 to the Yosemite National Park entrance gate, due to snow.”

Also the southern hemisphere has seen cold weather as well. The forecast for Australia is calling for below normal temperatures.

South Polar Ice Age: Stations Show “Dramatic” Antarctic Peninsula Cooling Since 1998, Sea Ice Surge

Posted by Ed Caryl on July 08, 2015
Antarctic, Cooling/Temperature / 36 Comments

[Sticky post…new articles follow after this one.]
=====================================
By Ed Caryl

This is a follow-up to the article AWI’s Sloppy Antarctic Peninsula Science…Overlooked GISS Temperature Data, Snowfall Amounts. The reality is that the situation at the South Pole is worrisome.

Ocean around Antarctica markedly colder since 2006…

It is difficult to believe that global warming/climate change is doing anything to the glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula and the Western Antarctic. Here is why: The ocean around Antarctica has been getting markedly colder since 2006; sea ice is increasing, especially since 2012; and land temperatures have been cooling since the El Niño of 1998.

0 – 100m ocean temperature plummeting:

Sea temp 60 - 70°S

Figure 1 is the upper 100 meters of ocean south of 60°S. There’s been a rapid cooling since about 2007. Negative numbers are used to select latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The source is KNMI, link.

Sea ice skyrockets…

SH Sea Ice Extent

Figure 2 is the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area anomaly. The source is KNMI, link.

Sea Temp and Ice plot

Figure 3 is a plot of the annualized ocean temperature and Southern Hemisphere ice extent using the KNMI data from figures 1 and 2. Ocean temperature is inverted to show that the ice extent matches the cooling ocean. Note the correlation between the two curves.

Antarctic Peninsula sees dramatic cooling…

Antarctic Peninsula Stations

Figure 4 is a plot of the temperature anomalies at 13 Antarctic stations on or near the Antarctic Peninsula. The baseline is the 1998 to 2014 average for each. Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 2000. Data source: GISTemp, link.

There is a lot a variation in the annual average temperatures for these stations, especially in the years where there were only two stations reporting, Esperanz and Faraday. For that reason, the average in figure 5 begins in 1963 when O’Higgins began reporting.

Larsen Ice Shelf

Figure 5 is the average anomaly for the stations in figure 4.

There were two peaks in temperature, one in 1989 and a second during the El Niño year of 1998 which caused a steep upward in temperature world-wide, and especially in Antarctica. But since then there has been a dramatic cooling. There is no “hiatus” on the Antarctic Peninsula, there is marked cooling.

Larsen Ice Shelf station cooling at a rate of 18°C per century

Cooling is especially true of the very location everyone is concerned about, the Larsen Ice Shelf. There is an automated weather station (AWS) there that has been reporting continuously since 1995.

Larsen Ice Shelf

Figure 6 is the annual average temperature at the Larsen Ice Shelf. The source is GISTemp.

Figure 6 shows the step in temperature in 1998 at the Larsen Ice Shelf. The trend in cooling after 1998 is 1.8°C/decade, the second fastest cooling on the Peninsula. Butler Island is cooling faster, at 1.9°C/decade. (Of course 18°C/century cooling is meant as sarcasm, and is only a trick that warmists like to use.)

Result: exploding sea ice

It is easy to see why the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The average ocean temperature from the surface to 100 meters dropped below the freezing point in 2008 and has stayed there. It is hard to melt ice when the water it is floating on is below the freezing point of fresh water, and seldom rises above that temperature.

The Southern Ocean around Antarctica has similar warming and cooling cycles as the North Atlantic, just not as strong. The cycle is now going negative, and temperatures on land and in the ocean are going sharply cooler, with ice increasing. There is no warm ocean water melting ice shelves from below. The ocean is getting colder and is below freezing most of the time. Any increase in ice calving off the glaciers must be from increased snow feeding those glaciers or geothermal heating from volcanism under the ice.

Welcome to reality.

NOAA’s Data Debacle …Alterations Ruin 120 Years Of Painstakingly Collected Weather Data

Posted by P Gosselin on July 07, 2015
Activism, Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team / 10 Comments

“O, what a tangled web we weave,
When we first practice to deceive.”

Walter Scott

============================
By Michael Brakey, New Gloucester, Maine
Part 2/2

As an energy consultant, I have been implementing energy efficiency improvements over the past six years to help transform our very inefficient log cabin home in New Gloucester, Maine into one of the most energy efficient homes in the United States.

In order to measure the results, I wanted to compare apples-to-apples on heating and cooling demands. Therefore, I have been closely tracking and archiving local heating and cooling degree-day statistics over the last decade.

To do this I have local, unfiltered heating degree-day (HDD) history going back to 1893 from nearby Lewiston/Auburn. Seeing people are more familiar with degrees Fahrenheit (0F), I have converted the HDD to temperatures, and averaged them over running 11-year solar cycles. Those results are shown in the following chart:

Brakey_1

While I was continually updating my local data, I also had cause to visit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) website in January 2013 for data on the entire state of Maine. Here I noticed that NOAA’s data indicated that the state of Maine was a total of 1030F colder over the last 117 years compared to local Lewiston data. That worked out to 0.880F per year for “statewide” Maine compared to Lewiston in a southern interior climate.

Brakey_2

That seemed reasonable because of the inclusion of northern Maine. I archived NOAA data for Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and the 48 contiguous states, as one entity.

Adjusted dataset twice in 18 months, adjustments totaling of 254°F

In early 2015, I revisited the NOAA website and updated my HDD and cooling degree-day (CDD) data for a local television presentation. Here I was shocked to discover that NOAA had not only rewritten Maine climate history for a second time in the last 18 months, but with all the tinkering they also screwed up southern interior Maine averages. Southern Maine temperatures were now colder than all of Maine as a whole! NOAA had inflated HDD figures so high that they had lowered Fahrenheit temperatures an additional 1510F summed over the years! Southern Maine interior was now 2540F colder over the last 119 years versus original Lewiston data. This means the NOAA rewrote Maine climate history to the extreme of lowering each year the equivalent of 2.120F per year colder. In order to counter Mother Nature’s recent cyclic cooling, the earlier historic years were lowered as much as five degrees while recent temperatures remained almost untouched.

Brakey_3

Black line before adjustments. Green line after adjustments.

Past adjusted downward also throughout the USA

Upon comparing NOAA data from other states that I had archived in 2013 to current NOAA data, I found similar discrepancies:

  • Ohio’s historical temps were lowered total of 83.80F.
  • Tennessee’s record had been lowered total of 51.50
  • The U. S. temps for 48 contiguous lowered total of 73.40

Why all the alterations?

Why would NOAA be dramatically lowering temperature records for Maine as well as for other states? A picture is said to be worth a thousand words. In the following illustration I charted the different phases of change by NOAA in 2011 and then in 2014.

Brakey_4

  • The black line shows the local data that I collected and archived from local Lewiston, Maine websites (see reference 1).
  • The blue line is data I downloaded in 2013 from NOAA’s website for the entire state of the Maine.
  • The green line is data I downloaded recently from the same NOAA website for the southern interior region of Maine, which includes Lewiston.

There was little if any difference between NOAA and local data in 1998 – until a few years ago. It was only after Mother Nature started cooling local temperatures that NOAA began altering the climate history record. The chart above shows three versions of a rolling 11-year average of historical temperature data since the early 1900’s for the Lewiston/Auburn area.

NOAA confirmed in writing that it’s altering climate data

NOAA was contacted and asked for an explanation. On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing the massive changes to Maine’s data. NOAA stated the changes were intentional and justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words:

“…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).”

NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past temperature history seemed fishy to me. How do they explain similar adjustments to the data for Maine’s southern interior region? 

Worse, they made southern Maine colder than the entire state of Maine! They also revised downward historic temperatures for Tennessee, Ohio, and the United States as a whole. Every U.S. state for which I kept archived NOAA data from 2013 had been adjusted in an almost identical manner.

On June 4, NOAA responded through a general Associated Press statement that they continually readjust thousands of weather data points to account for different measuring techniques through the decades (see part of article to right).

Public deserves facts, not fantasy

My question to NOAA is: Why?

Why does NOAA feel compelled to apply different measuring techniques to climate data? Why not give access to the raw collected data? Why must NOAA apply a master algorithm to the data that not only has been proven to be corrupted, but also whitewash major climate cooling events in recent years. The American public should be given facts not fantasy.

Brakey_110Could NOAA explain the recent climate measuring techniques implemented in the spring of 2014 that have resulted in the CD2 southern interior of Maine (seen in blue area of chart to right) being a third of a degree 0F colder per year when compared to the entire state of Maine?

Again this is fantasy over both fact and common sense. The information below is drawn from NOAA’s most current website. Below is NOAA’s most recent “adjusted data’ for Maine on their website.

Brakey_111

NOAA simply ignoring reality

The charts above indicate that southern Maine has on average been 1/30F colder than all of Maine for the last 120 years! NOAA’s recent response to all these questions and observations can be found in their June 4th press release. They reiterated the same mantra; ignore satellite data, ignore facts given by non-scientist (and scientists alike) that disagree with NOAA’s climate data enhancements! We should just trust what NOAA tells us.

Trust is lost

Little wonder recent surveys indicated 76% of the American population does not trust the government to do what is right.

NOAA data cannot be relied on

As stated in yesterday’s post, decision makers in the state of Maine, and across America, cannot and should not rely on NOAA data for setting energy policy. If we are indeed experiencing regional cooling, then we should be encouraging insulation and less expensive sources of heating, such as natural gas, heat pumps, geothermal and future technologies associate with thorium and hydrogen.

However, based on NOAA’s data, which indicates a warming trend, lobbyists are focused on electric generation by means of wind and solar. It is important to gather data from other non-governmental sources to make sound decisions. It appears that we presently live in a nation where an agency of the Federal government has rewritten our climate history. Decisions worth trillions of dollars are being made based on fraudulent climate data.

Resources:

 

NOAA Fudging Turns Into A Mess …Bangor 2015 Sets 6-Month Cold Record Amid NOAA Claims It’s Warm!

Posted by P Gosselin on July 06, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team / 23 Comments

By Michael Brakey

Brakey_1Unbeknownst 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.

Brakey_110Below 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.

Brakey_111

Analysis Shows Current Warming Is NOT Unprecedented …It Is Not Even “Unusual”!

Posted by Ed Caryl on June 24, 2015
Arctic, Cooling/Temperature, Paleo-climatology / 58 Comments

UPDATE: New paper: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.de/2015/06/new-paper-shows-n-greenland-was-warmer.html
=====================================

By Ed Caryl

The climate calamity crowd claims that the warming we experienced in the Twentieth Century is unprecedented… it has never happened before in human history. Because we didn’t have thermometers until about 300 years ago, and even then records exist from just a few locations, it is difficult to prove that this is not so.

The only reliable temperature record we have with continuous reasonable resolution data is the ice core oxygen isotope data from Greenland. I downloaded the GISP2 data and did a point-by-point difference calculation, computing the warming and cooling trend between each data point, and produced this plot.

GISP2 change rate

Figure 1 is a plot (blue) of the GISP2 temperature data and the calculated warming or cooling (red) between each point expressed as change (warming or cooling) per decade. The horizontal scale is in years before present. Because Excel places zero on the left side and counts up to the right, the present is on the left.

There have been 73 warming periods…

Temperatures in the Holocene have been quite volatile. Excel counts in this data 73 warming periods of at least 0.1 degrees per decade, and 80 cooling periods of that same amount. The time resolution of the points in the data are from about six years to about twenty years, so many of these warming and cooling periods are short. But some span a century or longer as we will see in figure 2.

I processed the HADCRUT4 data set to six year resolution to simulate the ice core data here. The highest warming was in the six year period from 1975 to 1981, a rate of 0.27°C/decade. There were two periods in the ice core data with higher warming rates, one was in 1370 BCE where in a 12 year period the warming rate was 0.357°C/decade. This period was bracketed by similar length periods with 0.25 and 0.16°C/decade warming periods. This 34-year period saw a warming of nearly a degree (0.98°C) far exceeding the warming in the late Twentieth Century.

Another period 8200 years ago (6200BCE) saw a 1.667°C warming in 71 years. The people around at that time must have been truly panicked at the rapid climate change and probably blamed it on the invention of beer.

Here is a chart of the ice core temperature and HADCRUT4 together as an anomaly plot using the same baseline period, spliced at 1850-55, the only years they have in common.

GISP2 & HADCRUT4 Anomalies

Figure 2 is a plot of the ice core (GISP2) and HADCRUT4 as an anomaly plot. The vertical scale is in degrees C. The horizontal scale is calendar years with the present on the right.

HADCRUT4 is the thermometer-measured, small, red, “Hockey-stick” at the right side. All the excitement is about half of that red uptick. The big question: Is it natural, or CO2?

In Figure 2, many heating and cooling periods with high magnitude and longer duration than the current warming are seen. The two periods described above are seen at 1400BCE and 6200BCE, but there are others scattered across the plot. The current warming appears puny in comparison and only half of that is in any way attributable to CO2.

Greenland tells a lot

Some detractors have tried to make the point that Greenland ice core data only reflects Greenland temperatures. This isn’t quite correct on several counts. Oxygen isotope fractionation acts at three places: the area of evaporation and the points of condensation and precipitation. These phenomena are latitude dependent and the evaporation area is diffuse. So the ice core data reflects temperature at Greenland’s latitude.

Another point (though it only applies to the first 3000 years on this chart) is that during the Ice Age, the ice sheets removed so much fresh water from the oceans that it increased the salinity of the remainder, affecting surface oxygen isotope levels. This is also factored into the temperature calculation (link). Also, the ice core temperature data is averaged over the years represented at each section of core. This temperature represents climate over those years and not weather. The last point is that heat exchange between Greenland latitudes and the oceans, and thus the rest of the globe, insures that Greenland temperature cannot be far from reflecting global temperature.

A larger point is that the current warming is not unusual. Even greater warming has occurred many times in the last 11,000 years. It has been as much as two degrees warmer than now three times in the last 10,000 years. More important, warming episodes are followed by cooling episodes that can be disastrous for mankind. The long-term trend for the last 3000 years of the Holocene has been cooling. We are slowly sliding into the next long cold at about half a degree C per millennium.

The Excel spreadsheet used to generate the figures and calculations is here.

Europe Weather: “Thing Of The Past” Now A Thing Of Summer …Snow At 1500 Meters In Southern Germany

Posted by P Gosselin on June 19, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Stupid Predictions, Weather / 23 Comments

Two days ago I wrote about the cold weather that’s been gripping Germany and Central Europe. Well, things are about to get worse early this weekend, and not better.

The online Munich-based Abendzeiting (Evening News) here reports the latest weather forecast of frost and snow that are set to hit Germany – in June…on the first day of summer!

Snow in Bavaria down to 1500 meters

The online news site writes that this year “summer is starting out wet and cold: Ground frost in the north, snow in the Alps“.

Though snow is not an unusual event in the Alps at higher elevations above 2500 meters, it is unusual when it happens at just 1500 meters in the summertime. The Abendzeitung writes:

Things don’t look better down south. In the Bavarian Alps the snowfall level will drop to 1500 to 1800 meters. On Zugspitze up to 50 centimeters of snow will fall.”

This morning my wife even turned the furnace back on, as many other homes have done in Germany over the past days. “It’s too friggin cold,” she told me.

Climate forecasts of scorching hot Europe summers refuted

In the early 2000s climate scientists predicted Europe would have to get used to scorching hot and parched summers, similar to that seen in 2003. However, more than 10 years later, summers have been cooler and wetter than normal, thus so far defying the climate scientists’ predictions.

And this summer does not appear to be anything different. The Abendzeitung quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung of wetter.net:

I don’t believe we are going to experience an extremely hot July or August. The run-up to the summer this year has been similar to 2013 and 2014. In both of those years the spring was like in 2015: stable, dry and very sunny. In both years variable and only moderately warm summers followed. I anticipate the same for this year.”

The coming cold is just the latest in an extended string of well below normal temperatures. Last week northern Germany saw 5 consecutive mornings with ground surface frost, a “very unusual” event, Jung reported earlier.

Scientists got the science all wrong

Naturally the recent unusual cold weather has nothing to do with a climate trend; it is just weather – something the global warming alarmists like to forget when hot weather hits. Still, it is important to remind them that they once told us such cold events were “a thing of the past”, that children would never know them and that instead we needed to prepare for hot scorcher periods.

Surprise! The cold events have been becoming more frequent in Germany over the past quarter century, thus bluntly refuting the models. The climate scientists need to admit that they got the science on this all wrong.

“Very Unusual” Mid-June Cold Surprises Germany…Surface Temperatures Around Hamburg Fall To -3°C!

Posted by P Gosselin on June 17, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Weather / 32 Comments

The year started out on the mild side in Central Europe, but since early May temperatures have been stubbornly on the low side.

“Rarity”: 5 consecutive June days of surface frost

Over northern Germany, for example, the last 10 or so days have been gripped by cold weather. The online Sudkürier here cites meteorologist Dominik Jung, writing how last week there was “a very unusual phenomenon: five days in a row in North Germany there was surface frost. That according to Jung is a rarity for June.”

Ground surface frost is already rare enough over the northern German lowlands in May, let alone June!

In Germany farmers and weather hobbyists often talk of these annual June cold spells, calling them Schafskälte – or “sheep cold”. They often occur in mid June when cold polar air grips the country.

“Record suspect low”

But this year the phenomenon appears to be especially pronounced.

Jung_6_2ß15

German meteorologist Dominik Jung explains what’s behind this year’s “very unusual” June cold spell. Image cropped from: https://www.youtube.com/

Not only last week was cold, but so is this week. In today’s wetter.net  forecast video, Jung tells viewers how this morning: “…around Hamburg ground-surface temperatures fell to -3°C. Yes, for this time of the year this is a record-suspect low.”

In the video the commercial meteorologist also says that after today’s milder temperatures the “grizzly summer weather” shows no signs of letting up. Daytime temperatures are forecast to stubbornly remain stuck in the 50s and 60s (14 – 20°C) over the rest of the week.

“Numerous days with ground level frost”

The online sachsen-fernsehen (Saxony television) writes that not only was the Hamburg region hit, but the cold was widespread across northern Germany:

“In Lübeck and Hannover, just above the ground readings of down to -2°C were taken. Even in Berlin early this morning the thermometer showed ground level frost with readings around 0°C.

Precisely at Germany’s number 1 beaches, the North and Baltic seas, June has been quite fresh so far. The month’s half in the north has been about 1°C colder than the longterm mean. And with the numerous days with ground level frost that June has seen so far, it’s hardly a wonder.”

Drought also taking hold…

Moreover, large parts of northern Germany are being gripped by a deepening drought. Here as well no significant amounts of rainfall are in sight.

The latest buzz is that Germans should not be expecting any type of “barbecue summer” this year.

Max Planck Society Confirms Warming Pause! …Scrambles To Explain Widespread Model Failure

Posted by P Gosselin on June 16, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Models, Oceans / 17 Comments

Max Planck Society: “Temperatures stagnant approximately since 1998, but at high level”

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P. Gosselin]

Attempting midterm predictions

The Max-Planck Society publishes the magazine “Max Planck Forschung” on a regular basis. In its 1/2015 issue beginning on page 68 one finds the article: “…and now on the climate of tomorrow”. The German language article is also available (pdf here). The article starts:

How will the climate appear in 10 or 15 years? Scientists have been unable to provide a satisfactory answer to this question – mainly because random changes play a large role in such mid-term time-frames. A natural fluctuation is likely also the cause of temperatures barely increasing over the past 15 years. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and his colleagues all over Germany are working intensively on a system that will deliver reliable prognoses for the coming years.”

Hiatus confirmed

In other words this is about the pause in warming since 1998 and the question of why none of the expensive climate models had correctly forecast the hiatus. Indeed this is a big problem, especially for the fraternity of the climate modellers, who in Germany are led by chief modeler Jochem Marotzke. His favorite excuse: “random changes”, which in his opinion are completely unpredictable. But that’s fatally wrong. His colleagues have long known better and have identified the 60-year ocean cycles as systematic climate drivers. See for example  here, here, here, here.

Scrambling to explain faulty models

First of all the Max Planck Magazine thankfully does confirm what all temperature curves now clearly show, but what a few climate activists clearly refuse to believe:

Another resaon was a phenomenon that at the end of the past decade it was visible that there was a temperature plateau, and this continues to occupy climate scientists today. The global warming that was in high gear during the 1980s and 1990s now appears to have been making a pause since the start of the new millennium. The temperatures have been stagnating since about 1998, but at a high level.”

Jochem Marotzke has recognized that this cannot continue on. Awhile back he launched the Project MiKlip with the aim of making more reliable prognoses. In the Max Planck Forschung (MPF) magazine it is stated:

Today, almost 10 years later, the science regarding decadal climate prognoses has come a long way. From 2011 to mid 2015 the German Federal Ministry for Science has financed the project MiKlip (Midterm Climate Prognoses), that Jochem Marotzke initiated and now coordinates as its director. In the meantime the application for the second phase has been made.”

Cooling Atlantic

We’ve reported on the MiKlip project before. The main result from the initiative so far is hardly known to the media because it is just too inconvenient. See our article “Over the midterm the climate prognoses of the BMBF MiKlip Projects: North Atlantic will cool down by several tenths of a degree by 2020″. Using a Google search, the environmentally activist Süddeutsche Zeitung has yet to report on this amazing prognosis. Activist climate website “Klimaretter.info” naturally has not done so either. Thus we are very curious on whether the Max Planck Magazine is now perhaps able to talk openly about this. In the article’s  title and introduction we see that this important information is absent. In England however, the University of Southampton recently came up with the same result but was much more transparent and proactive with the cooling finding. See our blog article “University of Southampton: Cooling ocean cycle will cause Atlantic to cool by half a degree Celsius over the coming decades, global warming hiatus continues and hurricanes will become less frequent“.

Max Planck Institute refuses to see ocean cycles

But instead of following the example from England, Marotzke continues to stick to his worn out chaos meme. MPF magazine writes:

Such forecasts however are still in the early stages. ‘There is still a lot of work that remains ahead of us,’ says the Hamburg-based scientist. Over the mid-term climate prognoses are burdened by a fundamental difficulty: the chaos of the climate system. As it is so with the weather, also the climate (the mean of weather) is also subject to natural fluctuations that more or less occur randomly. […] Climate scientists refer to these more or less random fluctuations as spontaneous or as internal variability. Due to such variations the global mean temperature can vary by 0.2 or 0.3°C from one year to the next. For scientists these variations are known as so-called ‘noise’ that superimpose the actual signal of global warming.”

Models’ hopelessly faulty assumptions

Here we would like to advise Marotzke: Try just once to apply the ocean cycles, like your colleagues in England are doing. Natural variability not only contains ‘noise’, but also quasi cyclic behavior that today are empirically well-known. However the sad truth is that climate models are unable to properly represent these known cycles. The problem is not with nature, rather it is in fact in the models. Also the weighting of the individual climate drivers is poorly understood. The IPCC table of radiative forcings for solar fluctuations has assigned a much too low value, one in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the geological-empirically determined systematic impacts of the sun.

We suspect that Marotzke has painted himself into a corner and so has to continuously find excuses and ignore the ocean cycles that have been at play over the last 20 years, though many have long been aware of them (see our article: IPCCcofounder Bert Bolin had all along been aware of the climatic role of ocean cycles).

Marotzke refuses to acknowledge low climate sensitivity

In the second part of the article the Max-Planck scientists discussed various possibilities as to why a warming pause happened. It was considered that the CO2 climate sensitivity may have been set much too high:

One possibility would be that the climate change drive in the models has been falsely assigned – i.e. the amount of radiative energy connected with a rise in atmospheric CO2 that gets trapped in the climate system or that gets reflected back out into space from aerosols. The values that the various models calculate for this magnitude vary widely. Another possibility is that the models over-estimate how sensitive the climate reacts to a rise in CO2. Some models assume that the global mean temperature will rise only 2°C from a doubling of CO2. Others assume that it will be more than 4.5°C warmer.”

But then a few lines later Marotzke and Co. abandon the possibility and return to their wild chaos theory. The MiKlip recognition of a cooling North Atlantic gets no mention at all. Instead the article concludes with a prognosis that anyone could have conjured up without millions in research money. Eventually someday the stupid temperature plateau will end. But as to when, no one really knows. An embarrassing conclusion. In the MPF magazine we read:

The temperature plateau is going to end sometime in the years ahead, as most scientists are convinced of this. It is likely that the warming of the earth’s surface will then progress even more quickly. At the latest when the trade winds blow over the Pacific more weakly the pause will be over.”

Other research groups here are clearer and more solid on this because they have a better grip on the unpopular ocean cycles than than the scientists in Hamburg do:

Again! 2nd Baltic Sea Report, Hans Von Storch, Show Medieval Warm Period 0.5°C Warmer Than Today!

Posted by P Gosselin on June 10, 2015
CO2 and GHG, Cooling/Temperature, Paleo-climatology / 31 Comments

How many times must a hockey stick be broken, before alarmists stop wetting their beds? … The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
======================================

Second climate status report on the Baltic Sea Region: Medieval Warm Period was Half A Degree Warmer Than Today
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

In mid-May 2015 the second Climate Status Report on the Baltic Sea region was released. It was coordinated by the Helmholtz Center in Geesthacht, Germany. In a press release the institute explained:

The Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin (BACC II), a recently published report, serves as a revision and expansion of the 2008 edition of the BACC book. ‘The current publication for the Baltic Sea area is a regional variant on the global report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),’ says Prof. Hans von Storch, Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and initiator of the report. The comprehensive scientific survey includes work from 141 scientists from twelve countries. The project team was coordinated by the International Baltic Earth Secretariat at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and consists of meteorologists, hydrologists, oceanographers and biologists.

Warming continues

The current study takes into consideration observed climate changes for approximately the last two hundred years as well as possible changes that might occur by the year 2100. These projections are obtained from computer models. Warming air temperature in the Baltic Sea region has already been verified based on measurements, but the increase is seasonally and regionally different. The most drastic recorded increase in warming to have occurred in the northern Baltic Sea region was 1.5 degrees Celsius between 1871 and 2011 during the spring seasons. This number is well above the global warming estimates of up to one degree Celsius documented in the last IPCC report.”

The folks in Geestacht indeed forgot to mention a small detail in the press release, as you will soon see. The first two chapters of the report deal mainly with the climate development of the last 12,000 years and the last 1000 years:

Pages 25-49: Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)
Irena Borzenkova, Eduardo Zorita, Olga Borisova, Laimdota Kalniņa, Dalia Kisielienė… Download PDF (1004KB)

Pages 51-65: The Historical Time Frame (Past 1000 Years)
Tadeusz Niedźwiedź, Rüdiger Glaser, Daniel Hansson, Samuli Helama, Vladimir Klimenko… Download PDF (912KB)

Obviously the Baltic Sea study goes far beyond the claimed 200 years. So out of curiosity, we examined the first two chapters. In the abstract of the 12,000-year chapter we discovered something interesting (emphasis added):

The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). The climatic variation during the Late-glacial and Holocene is reflected in the changing lake levels and vegetation, and in the formation of a complex hydrographical network that set the stage for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the past millennium.”

The pre-industrial climate of the Baltic Sea region was everything but stable. According to the study during the period of 8000-4500 years before today, it was about 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. This corresponds to the so-called “mid-Holocene climate optimum”. This is a warm period that is practically unknown to the public and not very well-liked by the media outlets. Suddenly we find a completely new meaning in the press release’s subheading “Warming continues”. It is getting warmer – but nowhere near as warm as it was during the 8000-4500 year before present period.

At the end of the abstract the attention shifts to the Medieval Warm Period, which is a part of the subsequent chapter by Tadeusz Niedźwiedź and colleagues. In the text describing the last 1000 years we find the well-known climate cycle that the IPCC tried to discard: the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period. The chapter writes:

According to the scientific literature, there are four climatic periods of the past millennium: the Medieval Warm Period (MWP 900-1350), the Transitional Period (TP 1350-1550), the Little Ice Age (LIA 1550-1850), and the Contemporary Warm Period (CW after 1850).”

Just how warm was it during the Medieval Warm period in the Baltic Sea region? Also here with this inconvenient question the authors do not shy away (emphasis added):

Recent investigations of Fennoscandia by Ljungqvist (2010) showed that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] occurred between 800 and 1300. At that time, warm-season (May-September) temperatures exceeded the contemporary warming of the end of twentieth century by about +0.5°C. The start of the warming was noted between the ninth and tenth centuries, and the peak temperature appeared at the beginning of the second half of the twelfth century. In a winter temperature simulation over the Baltic Sea region (Schimanke et al. 2012) during that time anomalies reached their highest value of+0.8°C for the MWP.”

The text above is a clear statement. The Baltic Sea region was 0.5°C warmer 1000 years ago.

No one wanted in any way that this important condition get mentioned in the press release. How could it have been warmer 1000 years ago than it is today at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentration was extraordinarily low?

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

Posted by P Gosselin on June 01, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team / 40 Comments

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.

Brakey_3

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).

Brakey_4

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.

Brakey_5

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.

Brakey_6

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.

Brakey_7

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).

Brakey_8

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.

Summary

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.

Brakey_9

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

Brakey_15

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.

Brakey_10

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.

Brakey_11

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).

Brakey_12

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.

Brakey_13

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.

References:

[1] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, 1st series of five (5) short YouTube videos on NOAA climate adjustments https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[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: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.9QtBzze0.SF5o7vzD.dpbs

[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 – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[5] NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large Scale Rewrite of U.S. Temperature Data, May 6, 2015, Mr. Derek Arndt, NOAA, Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/07/noaa-e-mail-confirms-large-scale-rewrite-of-u-s-temperature-data-in-2014-improvements-in-the-dataset/#sthash.T6Bpcr1O.4fwNcmBn.dpbs

[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: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59. 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3QUEE3HYo&index=8&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[10] https://redneckusa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/data-set-changes-makes-it-hard-to-tell-real-story.pdf

[11] See Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go1zpvUzmRk&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59&index=10

[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: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

[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?

 

Cooling…German Springs Arriving 20 Days Later Than 28 Years Ago!

Posted by P Gosselin on May 31, 2015
Cooling/Temperature / 26 Comments

Spring in Germany arriving later and later every year. Also forsythia blossoms in Hamburg arriving later and later

By Josef Kowatsch und Stefan Kämpfe
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

This is an addendum to our earlier article on delayed spring blossoms here (and here at NTZ).

In our previous article linked above we showed that mean temperatures for the months of January, February and March have been cooling for almost the past three decades, this according to the German DWD National Weather Service. And this is the result without applying any urban heat island adjustments to the measured temperatures.

As a result we are seeing increasingly delayed spring starts – especially spring blossoms in open areas where the cooling is even more pronounced. We confirmed this with our own vegetation observations in the article, e.g. the blossoming of winter aconites out in the open.

Crocuses and winter aconites; Photo by J.Kowatsch/Stefan Kämpfe

Some readers from the over 100 comments left cast doubt on our observations, and pointed out that the official authorities such as the State Office for Environmental Protection in Karlsruhe or the DWD claimed the opposite was in fact occurring, i.e. spring was arriving earlier and earlier. However these readers failed to provide any measured data from these officials.

We took the time to look more deeply into the matter and found something astonishing. The State Environment Office in Karlsruhe itself does not even keep any such long-term observations. Instead it gets the results from the DWD. And the DWD appears to have the habit of regularly citing forsythia blossoms in the City of Hamburg as an example of spring arriving earlier. The blossoms are earlier and earlier, the DWD claims, at least those that the DWD always likes to invoke. This claimed early blossoming indeed must be evidence of climate warming, a few of the readers believed.

Well, a former DWD employee recently provided us with the following diagram of the forsythia blossoming data for the Hamburg Lombard Bridge from the DWD itself. The surprise is great:

Fig. 1 The left side vertical axis depicts the number of days after the start of the year. The higher the number, the later the start of forsythia blossoms. The chart shows they are arriving almost 20 days later than 25 years earlier.

Although the observation series were recorded right in the middle of heat island Hamburg, and thus did not even fulfill the conditions for an objective observation, the start of blossoms turns out to be precisely as those in the completely open exposed areas that we looked at in our previous article: Since 1988 spring has been arriving later and later. The start of springtime forsythia blossoms is also arriving later and later in the large urban heat island of Hamburg.

Result: Also the data on the City of Hamburg show that forsythia blossom have been arriving considerably later and later since 1988, indicating a increasingly delayed start of spring.

The constant claims that forsythia blossoms are coming earlier and earlier are false.

Another phenologist located in Seesen also sent us his observation data of forsythia blossoms, and these are shown in the following chart:

Fig. 2. Forsythia blossoms have been arriving later and later also in Seesen for the past 28 years. The observations are consistent with the data from the DWD in Hamburg.” Data source: Phenologist Georg v. Petersdorff-Campen

Result: Spring in Germany is beginning later and later. All March blossoms are delayed. We trace this back to the months of January, February and March becoming colder and colder over the past 28 years.

Germany’s May 2015 Comes In 0.5°C Cooler Than Normal…Trend To Cooler Central European Springs Continues

Posted by P Gosselin on May 30, 2015
Cooling/Temperature / 9 Comments

The German DWD National Weather Service brings us the statistics for the month of May in Germany.

Overall, using the preliminary results from approximately 2000 weather stations, the DWD reports that May in the Central European country was 0.5°C cooler than the 1981-2010 mean and 0.4°C warmer than the 1961-1990 mean. The 1961-1990 reference period is used very little and has no meaning for the general citizenry because it was too long ago. But because the DWD has adopted the warmist agenda, it likes to use the ancient 1961-1990 mean in order to be able to declare warmer than normal months.

Statistical acrobatics aside, the May result shows that Central Europe’s overall trend to cooler and later springs continues unabated, thus defying predictions of warming.

The DWD also reports that precipitation was below normal and that the month saw some severe thunderstorms and destructive tornadoes. Overall the country saw a mixed bag of May weather, from night-time frosts at some locations to daytime high temperatures of over 30°C in other locations. The country also saw a bit below normal sunshine.

Though the DWD does its best to make this recent month appear as a month with unusual, weird weather, as a whole the month was nothing out of the normal range and was everything one would expect for a month of May in Central Europe.

NASA’s Temperature Data Fibbing … And Thomas Friedman’s Junk Renewable Energy Economics

Posted by P Gosselin on May 24, 2015
Cooling/Temperature / 2 Comments

Good to see that this NTZ site is contributing to articles on climate change and renewable energies by larger media outlets.

For example Charles Battig at the American Thinker here cited NoTricksZone in his report on Thomas Friedman’s editorial on the supposed “success” of Germany’s renewable energies. In his editorial, Friedman stupidly ignores all the glaring reports and data of Germany’s reneable energy failure, and tries to sell the entire mess as a grand success. In Battig’s words, “He knows how to put the proverbial ‘lipstick on a pig’.” And adds:

A recent German government report notes that Germany’s system ‘rewards the most inefficient plants, doesn’t contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a disadvantage.’  A Nobel Peace Prize for this, Mr. Friedman?

Germany is building new coal power plants to replace the energy provided by nuclear power plants being shut down.  They are to be powered by lignite, a brown coal of low caloric content.  German’s newest and most energy-efficient gas turbine plants are forced into an uneconomical standby status as Energiewende  policies mandate the preferential use of wind and solar.  Thus, cheap lignite-powered plants are built and produce high levels of pollutants that are the exact opposite goals of the government’s green policies.

As for Friedman’s ‘stability of our planet and climate’ concern, he might console himself with the fact that the global satellite temperature record of the past 18 years and 5 months shows a statistically flat line, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen about 10 percent.

Three oinks to Friedman’s lipstick report. It is a green porker.”

NASA data alterations

Meanwhile, H. Sterling Burnett at the Heartland Institute here has a story on all the temperature data fibbing going on at NASA lately. Though he does not link to NTZ directly, the source of the information behind the tampering shenanigans going on in Switzerland is NTZ here, a story that was shared or liked more than 2000 times.

Burnett writes:

Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a ‘propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.’

In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. ‘The corrections … appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,’ said Schär.

Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.”

Also reporting on the Swiss data fibbing was Newsmax.

Lancet Medical Journal: Comprehensive Study Shows Cold Waves 20 TIMES MORE LETHAL Than Heat Waves!

Posted by P Gosselin on May 22, 2015
Abnormal Climate Psych, Cooling/Temperature / 22 Comments

Here’s another compelling reason why we should all be hoping that the earth will warm and not cool over the coming decades. (After all, there is no way the temperature is going to stay stagnant).

The print edition of yesterday’s UK Daily Mail has a short report on an international study on the effects of temperature on death rates. The comprehensive study was conducted by the Dr. Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It examined 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

Also read it at Science Daily (Can’t link because I’m writing from a mobile device – just Google it).

The result, The Daily Mail writes:

7.71 per cent of the deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures. Cold was responsible for 7.29 per cent of deaths, while 0.42% were attributable to heat, according to the study, published by the Lancet medical journal.”

In other words, deaths from cold were some 20 times than those from heat.

What is interesting is that the study found that most of the deaths occurred when the temperatures were “moderately hot and cold”. This may be due to people underestimating the “moderate” anomalies, and thus failing to take the corresponding precautions. On extremely hot or cold days, on the other hand, the level of awareness is heightened due to media hype, and so people tend to behave accordingly, i.e. drink more fluids, or really bundle up.

Cold is the last thing we need

The study tells us one thing: Cold is the last thing we want to see, and any warming needs to be welcome. Unfortunately recent temperature data and climate trends bode ill, as a number of distinguished scientists are forecasting cooling over the coming decades due to ocean and solar cycles swinging into their cool modes.

Given the results of the study, which are obvious to most normal thinking people, one would need to be a total moron, or just plain mean-spirited,  to be rooting for cooling.

“There Are People Who Believe They See Unabated Global Warming In the 1/100°C Range” …Warming Has Ground To a Halt

Posted by P Gosselin on May 19, 2015
Cooling/Temperature / 40 Comments

Stefan Rahmstorf: No pause, anywhere!

[Translated by P. Gosselin)

“No pause, anywhere!” announced Stefan Rahmstorf in his latest article at KlimaLounge. And he added: “As our long-term readers know, there’s been a steady global warming since the 1970s, though it has been superimposed by the usual short-term fluctuations, it has not slowed down or accelerated by any significant means. […] As there has not been any slowdown, there has not been any pause or hiatus of any kind in warming.”

But this is easy to check over. To do this I’ve gotten the data on global temperature from the NOAA, plotted them and added the linear trends for the periods of 1970-2015, 1980-2015, 1990-2015, 2000-2015 and 2005-2015. (By the way, NOAA also uses the NASA GISS dataset for global temperature).

NOAA

What is seen above is that the trend since 1970 has been in decline. The rise in the trend lines is becoming less and less., i.e. flatter and flatter. Meanwhile the global warming scientists have been telling us for year/decades that global warming would accelerate more and more as greenhouse gases increased.

In fact just the opposite has been true.

Here once again is the NOAA data in its original form from the NOAA site for the period of 1998-2015.

NOAA1998-2015

There are actually people who see in it an unabated global warming (in the range of 1/100 of a degree). Hard to believe. Yes, you only have to believe in it, and suddenly you’ll see it. It’s like the blotch images in psychology.

Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear

Posted by Ed Caryl on May 14, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Models, Solar / 33 Comments

By Ed Caryl

Recently, Roy Spencer posted a graph that appeared to be a data record of some kind for the last 100 years. Then he revealed that it was generated in Excel with a simple random number function. The graph showed details that resembled things like El Niño’s and La Niña’s, pauses, and sudden warming and cooling.

I decided to repeat his graph introducing cycles into the mix. We know that the climate follows ~60 (AMO ocean cycle), ~210 (de Vries or Suess solar cycle), and ~1000 year (un-named) cycles (approximately). The following is a graphic of what happens if these cycles are introduced into the random number generator. The graph extends to 1014 simulated years by month. The random number generator is constrained to + and – 0.5, and each month adds 0.9 of the value of the previous month. The cycles use the sine function (SIN()) with input from the fractional year value, multiplied by 0.1 to produce a 62 year cycle, 0.029 to produce a 215 year cycle, and 0.006 to produce a cycle just over 1000 years. For this last cycle the COS function was used to shift the cycle phase by 90 degrees. Each month, 1/40th of each cycle value is added along with the 0.9 of the previous month. This produces a graph that roughly resembles earth’s climate over the last 1014 years with extension to the next 200.

Simulated Climate 1014 years

Figure 1 is a simulation of the last 1014 years, with the applied climate cycles shown.

Zoom on last 214 years

Figure 2 is a magnification of the last 214 years from Figure 1. Blue is monthly data, black is the annual average, the red trace is the simulated AMO 62-year cycle.

Each re-calculation will completely change the data, but similar features always appear. In this iteration, an El Niño appears at 1999, that looks just like the real El Niño of 1998. We see a warming trend in the early twentieth century, and another in the late twentieth century, just like the real warming trends.

In figure 1, we see a Medieval Warming period and two periods of Little Ice Age. A minimum is seen that resembles the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, and the cool 1910s and 1970s appear. Even the cool Maunder Minimum appears in the correct place. Most of this result is not coincidence because the 62-year cycle is timed to match the real AMO, and the 204-year and 1000-year cycles roughly match real solar activity.

In this simulation, two successive warming periods very like the actual twentieth century warming periods, can occur from natural cycles alone, no extra “forcing” from CO2 is required.

So, what will the future bring? Now that we have this model, that reflects the past, as we know it, with general accuracy, can we project that into the future? Sure…this is just an Excel spreadsheet after all. I pasted on 200 more years. As I did so, Excel of course recalculated the whole table. So here is a second example of the last 214 years that it came up with, in case someone accuses me of “cherry-picking”. Note that we get much the same pattern of warming and cooling, with a couple of El Niño’s in approximately the right place in the last 20 years.

Zoom #2

Figure 3 is another calculation of the same period as in figure 2. The black trace is an annual average of the monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

Note the resemblance between figures 2 and 3. Each is a different calculation using different random numbers, yet the small addition of non-random sine wave cycles pushes the output into shapes that resemble the climate that happened in this period.

The next 200 years

Figure 4 is the future, as projected by our model. The black trace is an annual average of the blue monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

As you can see, the future holds nothing to fear. There will be a few El Niño’s in the next ten years, then a moderate cooling as we come off the peak of the 62 and 204 year cycles. There will be more of those in mid-century, as the AMO rises again, then more cooling for a period at the end of the century as both of those cycles bottom out. No extensive warm periods will appear until late in the twenty-second century, as both peak again.

This model is not new. On the side-bar of this blog, an illustration from Nicola Scafetta’s model is similar, with the addition of some shorter cycles. An earlier post on this blog from a paper by Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss (cited above) also used a similar model. The chief addition is random “weather”.

No CO2 molecules were harmed in the generation of these graphs. Nor, for that matter, were they considered.

For those with Excel expertise, I have posted the file to Dropbox here.

Energy Physicist Implores NOAA To Return To Credibility… “Get Out Of Adjusting Business”!

Posted by P Gosselin on May 09, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team / 14 Comments

Response to NOAA’s claim adjustments are improvements
By Mike Brakey

The email from NOAA’s Derek Arndt confirms that they conducted a massive rewrite of U.S. data in 2014. He also confirmed that the 1913 Maine climate data was indeed lowered a whopping 40F as noted in my article, Black Swan Climate Theory.

My response is based on actual unadjusted temperature data from the Lewiston-Auburn area of Maine, which I secured from a local source and provided in prior emails. (I have attached that data and links to the websites the data was extracted from).  As shown in Chart 1, between 1895 and 1937, the Lewiston-Auburn region (Zone 19 in Chart 2) was typically ¾0F warmer than Maine’s overall state average, based on NOAA data I downloaded in 2013.

Brakey_1

Chart No. 1 & 2.

This data is the black line on Chart 1. I would expect the Lewiston-Auburn area to be slightly warmer than Maine as a whole because it is in southern Maine. Based on the 2013 data, Maine’s average temperatures were about ¾0F colder or less than those for Lewiston-Auburn during the period from 1904 to 1939, and again from 2008 through the present.

The green shaded area shows what the NOAA data would have looked like if that ¾0F difference had remained constant through 2015.  Looking at the year 1913, I might agree with Mr. Arndt that they had an error and I would understand a temperature correction of approximately  ¾0F, but not 40F.

Contradictory data

I am suspicious of the NOAA data, both the original from 2013 and the revised, between 1940 and 2008 because the Maine average temperatures are so significantly less than those for the Lewiston-Auburn region. The other oddity is that there was a downward trend in temperatures for Lewiston-Auburn starting in 1998. However, both sets of NOAA data show temperatures rising for the state of Maine during that same time period.

As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates likely are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data (as typified by the green line in Chart 1 above).  If the RAW temperature data is always made available, I would be happy to entertain any theories and projections NOAA or IPCC wishes to make…as long as we all know the true base line (similar to what we have for the green line in Chart 1 with Lewiston-Auburn historical temperature data).

In conclusion, I implore NOAA to return credibility to its website, by getting out of the statistical smoothing and adjusting business and by just providing the scientific community with the basic unfiltered temperature data at all of its site locales. Let’s stay away from all the havoc created between Charts 3 and 4.

Brakey_3
Chart no. 3 & 4.

Watch the entire series of YouTube videos on how I found the NOAA adjustments.

NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large-Scale Rewrite Of U.S. Temperature Data In 2014 …”Improvements In The Dataset”

Posted by P Gosselin on May 07, 2015
Cooling/Temperature, Paleo-climatology / 35 Comments

On Mike Brakey’s recent post on the NOAA’s 151 degrees of fudging of the temperature datasets for the state of Maine, one reader was “so incensed” that he e-mailed the NOAA and his congressman.

Well, he got a reply from Derek Arndt at NOAA, which he sent to Mike Brakey, who in turn sent me Arndt’s reply – which I post as follows:

Hi Mr. XXXXXXXXX

In early 2014, we changed to a new version of the dataset upon which our US temperatures are drawn. The new dataset took advantage of a lot of older data that hadn’t been digitized (from paper) when the old dataset was constructed. It also took advantage of advancements in quality assurance that detect station moves, changes in observing practices, etc.

We began sharing with the community these upcoming changes as early as 2011: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/GrDD-Transition.pdf  In early 2014 we published a more complete methodological paper:

Vose, R.S., Applequist, S., Durre, I., Menne, M.J., Williams, C.N., Fenimore, C., Gleason, K., Arndt, D. 2014: Improved Historical Temperature and Precipitation Time Series For U.S. Climate Divisions Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0248.1

Maine was one of the states that saw the biggest differences in temperature. This is probably why blogs focus in on it. In addition to the general reasons for changes that other states witnessed:

  • The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement)
  • In the old dataset, the year 1913 was particularly problematic, resulting from a keying (transcription) error from many years ago that is now corrected. 1913 is often held up as evidence of “tampering” when in fact it is probably one of the biggest improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time.

Thanks for contacting us. It is a privilege to serve you.

Deke

 

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

Posted by P Gosselin on May 02, 2015
Activism, Cooling/Temperature, Paleo-climatology / 31 Comments

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