An Arctic 'Report Card' from NOAA

[cnm]

Ummm, everything. if you weren't a complete utter moron you would actually understand what you were looking at. But you don't, because you are. Corrupt scientists use all manner of flim flam techniques to fool stupid people.

They appear to have succeeded perfectly with you.

 

[cnm]

If you are to stupid to see that one of these graphs supports an alarmist narrative and the other simply imparts information

Really? Where both are showing an increase in av temps of around 1°C as far as can be determined by scale, and where one is for the northern hemisphere and the other is global?

I suppose that is alarming.

 

[cnm]

Wasn't NOAA caught changing historical temperature data in order to make their findings turn out the way they wanted.? LOL!

They will still be applying correction factors to present day data. Spencer has recalculated his satellite data at least twice that I know of. Why don't you complain about that?

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes, yes, yes. NOAA admits that it got everything wrong. That the Arctic is in great shape and is quickly growing back to its frigid, icy old self.


NOT

Report Card

The website you are trying to access is not available at this time due to a lapse in appropriation.​

<sigh>

 

[mamooth]

Wasn't NOAA caught changing historical temperature data in order to make their findings turn out the way they wanted.?

Well, no. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Next time, try fact checking. That means looking at non-cult sources.

 

[westwall]

Wasn't NOAA caught changing historical temperature data in order to make their findings turn out the way they wanted.?

Well, no. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Next time, try fact checking. That means looking at non-cult sources.

I suggest you follow your own advice silly kitty...


"There is not the slightest doubt that the US winter of 2013/14 was exceptionally cold by any standards, as the BBC reported at the time:


N America temperature records tumble

The cold weather really began on Jan 2nd, when an Arctic front descended across much of the country, and extended well into March.

The NWS wrote at the end of the winter:

The winter of 2013-14 finished as one of the coldest winters in recent memory for New York State. Snowfall across Western and North Central New York was above normal for many areas, and in some locations well above normal. This winter comes on the heels of two previous mild winters, making the cold and snow this winter feel that much harsher.

Temperatures this winter finished below normal every month, and the January through March timeframe finished at least 4 degrees below normal for the two primary climate stations of Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester)…..

Relentless cold continued through the month of January across the region

Winter Season Summary 2013 - 2014





However, when we look at NOAA’s official temperature record for New York State in January, 2014 only ranks as 30th coldest since 1895, with a mean temperature of 16.9F.
N America temperature records tumble

So I thought I would do some digging into the actual temperature data, to see if NOAA’s version stacks up. I promise that you will be astounded at the results!


New York State is subdivided into 10 sub-divisions, and I have taken a close look at one, Central Lakes (Div 10).

The NOAA graph shows a similar picture as the Statewide one, with a mean temperature of 17.8F, ranking 24th coldest.




New York’s Temperature Record Massively Altered By NOAA

 

[mamooth]

I suggest you follow your own advice silly kitty...

So I tell you to check non-cult sources, and you auto-respond with a cut-and-paste from a conspiracy cult website. Reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as to why nobody outside of your conspiracy cult will pay attention.

Don't blame us for your zeroed-out credibility. You shit your own bed, so now you get to lay in it.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, yes, yes. NOAA admits that it got everything wrong. That the Arctic is in great shape and is quickly growing back to its frigid, icy old self.


NOT

Report Card

That is not a safe site.

 

[cnm]

So I thought I would do some digging into the actual temperature data, to see if NOAA’s version stacks up. I promise that you will be astounded at the results!

But you haven't done that, you've posted a link to some site. Some 'digging into actual temperature data' done by you. Not.

 

[SSDD]

If you are to stupid to see that one of these graphs supports an alarmist narrative and the other simply imparts information

Really? Where both are showing an increase in av temps of around 1°C as far as can be determined by scale, and where one is for the northern hemisphere and the other is global?

I suppose that is alarming.

Guess that puts you in the stupid category....It takes a pretty dense brick not to see that one of those is solely for the purpose of supporting an alarmist narrative and one simply imparts information...and if you would like to see the purely informative (no alarmism added) graph for the southern hemisphere, I would be glad to provide it...

 

[SSDD]

Wasn't NOAA caught changing historical temperature data in order to make their findings turn out the way they wanted.? LOL!

They will still be applying correction factors to present day data. Spencer has recalculated his satellite data at least twice that I know of. Why don't you complain about that?

Got a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 50 years, 75 years, 100 years ago and further?

 

[Pilot1]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pausebuster” report of trying to “discredit” the hiatus through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

 

[cnm]

Guess that puts you in the stupid category...

I consider it a compliment to be categorised as such by you. I wouldn't know where to put my face if you thought me clever.

 

[cnm]

Got a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 50 years, 75 years, 100 years ago and further?

It's called 'better knowledge'. But I understand you operate in a fact free zone so your argument doesn't have to change as the known facts change.

 

[cnm]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

They are trusted by the consensus of climate scientists. I'd say that out weighs the suspicions of raving loonies.

 

[westwall]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

They are trusted by the consensus of climate scientists. I'd say that out weighs the suspicions of raving loonies.

Color me unsurprised that a government organisation, that derives its funding by perpetuating the fraud, will cook the numbers to help the scientists who are pushing the fraud because they too derive their funding from the fraud.

Were you a thinking person you would understand how that makes the entire profession suspect.

But we all know you don't think.

 

[cnm]

Were you a thinking person you would understand how that makes the entire profession suspect.

No, I'd understand how raving loonies satisfy their paranoia about a global conspiracy by climate scientists to make US rightards buy them lunch. They'd like sushi.

 

[Crick]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

They are trusted by the consensus of climate scientists. I'd say that out weighs the suspicions of raving loonies.

Color me unsurprised that a government organisation, that derives its funding by perpetuating the fraud, will cook the numbers to help the scientists who are pushing the fraud because they too derive their funding from the fraud.

Were you a thinking person you would understand how that makes the entire profession suspect.

But we all know you don't think.

1) Your position Mr Westwall would thus reject the findings of any scientific endeavor that discovered a threat or suggested further research was in our best interest.
2) The contention that more than 97% of the world's climate scientists - are willing to lie to the public to get funding is simply unsupportable. It's actually an insane claim.
3) Thus it appears that YOU are the one who fails to exhibit the characteristics of a thinking person.

 

[SSDD]

Why would they need to manipulate data. Shouldn't government agencies be trusted?

Careful...tongue in cheek statements expressing that much sarcasm could result in a perforated cheek.

 

[SSDD]

Got a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 50 years, 75 years, 100 years ago and further?

It's called 'better knowledge'. But I understand you operate in a fact free zone so your argument doesn't have to change as the known facts change.

Better knowledge? Hardly a rational, or scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 50, 75, 100 years ago or further...

"Better knowledge" is an empty, meaningless catch phrase...exactly how does altering temperature records from so far back improve knowledge?..and what is the rational justification for altering them in the first place other than they don't support the present alarmist narrative?