NOAA caught "cooking the books" again, this time by erasing a record cold snap

Via James Delingpole at Breitbart:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating  ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.

This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.

If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees.

Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD.

You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?

That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.

Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.

He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here

Full story here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BallBounces

Mental exercise: if the established narrative was global cooling instead of global warming, would the tamperature adjustments be different?

mellyrn

“tamperature” — I love it! Thanks for the chuckle.

Sweet Old Bob

Jobs and pensions should be lost .
Their reputations already are .

talldave2

The same thing happened a few years ago in the Great Lakes region. The ice proxies were completely at odds with the claimed temperatures.

James Griffin

Desperation…..in the UK we have not had a really warm Summer for years….yet with the Hadley Centre, The Met Office, BBC and The Guardian newspaper nothing is said.
What amuses me is that 75% of Sea Ice…North and South disappears during their respective warming seasons and we never notice it.
Yet by now NY should be under 30ft of water. Laughable.
One of my favourite bits of rubbish is that CO2 will keep us warmer than the Sun. Really?…Every sunset when the Sun disappears is temp still the same?.er No!
It gets colder and only warms up once the Sun is up again.
This whole AGW has been nonsense for years.
I well remember our former Prime Minister Tony Blair telling us all “we have 100 days to save the world”.
Like satellite data…more and more nonsense.

James Griffin February 20, 2018 at 12:33 pm
What amuses me is that 75% of Sea Ice…North and South disappears during their respective warming seasons and we never notice it.

We’re currently at the annual minimum extent for global sea ice, it’s about 16 million sq km, the lowest in the satellite record, the highest over that period being ~19 million sq km.
The annual maximum is usually around november and has ranged from 28 million sq km in the past to ~24 million sq km in 2016.
Where do you get 75% from?

MikeP

There is the word “respective” in there. So posting about global extents is not responsive to what James Griffin said.

ptolemy2

Phil
A few years ago winter sea ice maximum eas anomalously high. The chorus then from the climate and Arctic experts was that the spring maximum is irrelevant, Artcic is land bounded etc etc.
But now that winter maximum is low – suddenly it’s relevant?
No its not. Your lot were right first time. Wait till The much more relevant and informative September minimum. I’ll go on record (if anyone even gave a sh**) predicting that it will be high.

icisil

“We’re currently at the annual minimum extent for global sea ice, it’s about 16 million sq km, the lowest in the satellite record”
The sooner everyone realizes that sea ice extent is a meaningless number, the better. It has no connection to how much ice actually exists at any given point in time. The only thing it really signifies is that there is ice of some unspecified quality and quantity in a certain location. Furthermore an entire area could be frozen over with new thin ice, and it would not be picked up and included in sea ice extent. It’s real highly massaged garbage data.

MikeP February 20, 2018 at 1:01 pm
There is the word “respective” in there. So posting about global extents is not responsive to what James Griffin said.

Actually it does since the respective poles are out of phase with each other and therefore tend to cancel each other, consequently what could be noticed would be the nett global change.

ptolemy2 February 20, 2018 at 1:10 pm
Phil
A few years ago winter sea ice maximum eas anomalously high. The chorus then from the climate and Arctic experts was that the spring maximum is irrelevant, Artcic is land bounded etc etc.

Really? When was that, certainly not in the last ten years?
But now that winter maximum is low – suddenly it’s relevant?
No its not. Your lot were right first time. Wait till The much more relevant and informative September minimum. I’ll go on record (if anyone even gave a sh**) predicting that it will be high.

We’ll see, doesn’t seem likely but indeed winter maximum is not a good predictor of the fall minimum. The Bering st being exceptionally low for the time of year and some of the thickest ice in the Arctic still being broken and flowing through the Nares st isn’t a good start.

JimH

You’re right about UK summers. As a farmer I’m very aware of the summer weather, a good dry summer makes harvest a lot easier. In the last 10 years I can think of one summer, 2013, that contained a prolonged settled hot period of weather. The others may have had brief hot spells (which are always hyped by the usual suspects as ‘proof’ of global warming and climate change), some had hardly any warm spells at all (2012 was a terribly wet and cool summer). There hasn’t been a real scorcher of a summer when it hardly rained at all since 2006. God knows what they would say if we had a summer like 1995,1990 or 1976 today (all were incredibly hot dry summers) – presumably the climate apocalypse would be upon us……

commieBob

There’s a problem with government transparency here:

The United States Federal Government has taken many steps towards becoming more transparent, however it has many departments that are not transparent as well as extensive amounts of information that is deemed “classified” and exempt from FOIA. Like most state governments, many of the files of the executive, the President, are exempt from open records requests. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 allows for records to be sealed for up to 12 years. This however has not stopped many records from being sealed for several decades. link

NOAA, and any government department for that matter, owes it to the citizens to be completely transparent as to how they process data. It’s the spirit and letter of the law. Apparently they’ve found ways around that.

David

That is probably the biggest issue here: transparency. Are the adjustment justified? Who knows!

“There’s a problem with government transparency here:”
Have you actually read what they say? Windows can lack transparency if you keep the blinkers on. People here seem to be struggling with the simple fact that they publish both unadjusted and adjusted data. They explain in huge detail the rationale for adjustment, and the tests for its correctness. Their page on homogeneity adjustments is here. For detail they refer to the extensive paper by Menne and Williams, along with others.

commieBob

You’re guilty of massacring a metaphor. Blinkers don’t prevent visibility through windows. I am reminded of this Dilbert Cartoon … OK maybe not that bad.

Latitude

Have you actually read Paul’s post?….no you haven’t
“This means that NOAA has adjusted temperatures by an astonishing 2.4F, or about 1.3C.”
“Under the new nClimDiv system, introduced in 2014, NOAA’s methodology is extremely opaque. They don’t, to the best of my knowledge, publish the data and adjustments used.
In essence, we are asked to accept NOAA’s version without being able to check or verify it.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/

Tom Halla

And we are supposed to trust the NOAA weather records? What is even more weird is that it is difficult to find even fairly recent weather records on the net. I am sure they are there somewhere, but I tried to find the record for a snowfall in the Santa Cruz Mountains in the early 1970’s. I couldn’t remember exactly which year, but the NOAA records were rather obscure, and I gave up after about a half hour.

You sometimes have better luck looking for data like that from a local water resources agency.

Alan Tomalty

Let us not forget that Hansen of the Goddard institute a division of NASA closed down the H2O measurements in the atmosphere in 2009 after 20 years of measurement showed no increases. To this day many have been searching for up to date H2O data but noone seems to be collecting it. A key component of the AGW theory is that it would force more H20 in the atmosphere.

“Let us not forget that Hansen of the Goddard institute a division of NASA closed down the H2O measurements in the atmosphere in 2009 after 20 years of measurement showed no increases.”
One of the many things unforgotten here that just ain’t so. Hansen was never in charge of any “H2O measurements”.

Sara

I don’t know who is behind this baloney. If it’s Hansen, he should be fired. I cannot imagine why he would do something like that unless he has a hidden agenda.
But to any of us in the USA, our tax dollars go into his paycheck. It’s about time he was shown the door. This is disgraceful.

Sara February 20, 2018 at 12:48 pm
I don’t know who is behind this baloney. If it’s Hansen, he should be fired. I cannot imagine why he would do something like that unless he has a hidden agenda.

Hansen retired from NASA a few years ago and the original poster was referring to NOAA not NASA so nothing to do with Hansen.

bitchilly

it has plenty to do with hansen phil. just not directly this time.

Has anyone taken a real close look at this to see if Homewood’s findings are correct and valid? We sometimes rush to judgement….

Hugs

Kip, I’m sure you could do the right thing.

The Delinpole article appears to be based on Steve Goddard’s blog so not a very reliable source.
That graph is the monthly average for January, the record cold was for about one day (night) whereas otherwise the weather wasn’t exceptional, very little snow, so not surprising that the monthly average isn’t low. It’s a typical Goddard ploy to refer to a fact and then show a graph which doesn’t quite apply.
E.g. the freezing iguanas were in Florida, not the Northeast! As for the ‘sharks freezing in the ocean’ they were actually late migrating sharks getting cut off in the shallow waters of Cape Cod bay.

Extreme Hiatus

I think “Steve Goddard’s” site is far MORE reliable and honest than NOAA – though that really is not much of a compliment. NOAA very deliberately fakes data.

Latitude

That makes sense…the cold air in Florida detoured around Chile and came back up from the south….and it’s common for sharks to freeze in the bay, happens all the time
And Phil. while you busy trying to look like a moron…why didn’t you check Steve’s blog…before you tried to smear him?
…you would have found out he’s make no such post…and been on vacation

Latitude

“The Delinpole article appears to be based on Steve Goddard’s blog so not a very reliable source.”
“”That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered,””
…you are really out to do yourself in, aren’t you?

Latitude February 20, 2018 at 2:12 pm
That makes sense…the cold air in Florida detoured around Chile and came back up from the south….and it’s common for sharks to freeze in the bay, happens all the time

Cold snaps in December can catch them out, three of them miscalculated this time.
And Phil. while you busy trying to look like a moron…why didn’t you check Steve’s blog…before you tried to smear him?
…you would have found out he’s make no such post…and been on vacation

Yes I know he’s been on vacation, however it was Delingpole who made the claim about Goddard, not I. The first line of his piece says:
“Here is the chart that demonstrates the scale of the fraud (as nailed by Steven Goddard).”

Latitude February 20, 2018 at 2:38 pm
“The Delinpole article appears to be based on Steve Goddard’s blog so not a very reliable source.”
“”That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered,””
…you are really out to do yourself in, aren’t you?

No I actually read the article this refers to:
“Via James Delingpole at Breitbart:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.”

The first line of which says: “Here is the chart that demonstrates the scale of the fraud (as nailed by Steven Goddard).”

Latitude

Steve “nailed” that ages ago….nothing current at all…and nothing about this past January in New York
…Steve has nailed the “fraud” at NOAA a long time ago…..the Delinpole article is based on Paul’s blog
…you just had to get a dig in…..and Steve’s favorite word is moron

Crispin in Waterloo

There is a town in (Outer) Mongolia called Moron. Maybe that’s where Morons come from. Anything of or from that place would correctly be called ‘Moronic’.
I think there is a big data base of global temperatures there. They also have a ‘hire local’ policy, apparently.
What is NOAA’s end game? Adjusting temps upward by 10 degrees? The next ice age is going to start during ‘the hottest year evah’.

Kristi Silber

Kip – I don’t see that they are even comparable, from what is presented on Breitbart. He seems to be comparing temp avg for all of NYS with temps of sites within the state. Maybe I’m not reading it right, though.
Besides, even if they were different – even if there are data being adjusted – that is sometimes appropriate. Without knowing NOAA’s story, it’s wrong to assume fraud. Instead, the assumption always seems to be that (consensus) climate scientists are corrupt.

Extreme Hiatus

“Without knowing NOAA’s story”
Great. Let’s hear their “story.” Not another one of their usual vague generalized stories but the exact details in this case.
In the meantime, based on NOAA’s track record – and that of the whole corrupted ‘consensus’ – it is only logical to assume more deliberate and convenient fake numbers until proven otherwise.
Or are you still trying to invest with Madoff?

Kristi ==> The issue is what are called “ad hoc post hoc” adjustments — changes made to the original research record based on subjective opinions of what the data “should have” or “would have” been — the past data itself is questionable enough as it is — wide but unacknowledged uncertainty bars, known but ignored original measurement errors, the use of uncalibrated thermometers (this list goes on…). There are many varying opinions about how the original data has been changed and why — many changes are never actually scientifically documented and justified. Different agencies adjust differently — there are entire volumes, well, at least chapters, written about the ad hoc post hoc adjustments made to both the thermometer and satellite records.
All of the climate records have been subjected to these types of adjustments, see mine re Sea Level here at WUWT and Judith Curry’s ongoing discussion of sea levels issues and adjustments here./A>

“The issue is what are called “ad hoc post hoc” adjustments — changes made to the original research record “
They aren’t “changes made to the original research record”. There is no “research record” involved; they are routine weather records. And they aren’t “changed”; the original records are still there and published. Adjusted records are also published, and are used when a homogeneous historic regional average is needed.

Gerald Machnee

Nick says< **Adjusted records are also published, and are used when a homogeneous historic regional average is needed.**
Translation: Adjusted records are used when they have to tell the world this is the hottest year evuh.
That is how the 1930's faded from being the warmest.

scraft1

Kip, good point. Not being technically oriented it’s very difficult to sort these things out. Surely someone can verify or debunk Nick’s claim that NOAA is being transparent in their adjustments. This has to be done by crawling through the specifics – not just saying Nick is a liar or is simply wrong.

Philip Schaeffer

Ain’t nobody got time for that! And that’s a large part of the problem. The few people who could actually be bothered to get into things so deeply get drowned out by the big dumb mob.

Kristi Silber

Took a few minutes.
https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=NCDC&query=data+adjustment&x=0&y=0
And a ton of data.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access
After “climategate” I bet people are pretty careful to be transparent.

A C Osborn

Try reading up thread.

RWturner

Hard to tell actually, but given current events it would not be surprising at all if true. I’m surprised they’ve left the record warm 1932ish as is. How nice must that winter have been?!

I have notice that NOAA has removed their nice plot of raw vs adjusted temperatures. I guess too many people were seeing it. I have it in hardcopy, I think I had seen it here as well.

It’s still funny to me that the entire Global Warming Narrative, and the story of all the weather the earth has ever known, is sustained solely by the appearance of one line on a graph that squiggles a certain way, and it’s still amusing after all these years to watch all the chicanery employed (which includes the manipulation of various other squiggly line bit players) to maintain the main squiggly line’s particular appearance, like it needs to be appeased like a god.
Andrew

vukcevic

Meanwhile the agreeable 10C (18F) warmer on this side of the pond
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NE&CET.gif

Extreme Hiatus

So what? That is beside the point. A distraction. The point is this faked case, period. We need to focus on it.

Alan Tomalty

There is no trend to that graph

Extreme Hiatus

With the Trump administration in power it is time for this corruption to stop. Like right now.
There is no point just moaning about this obvious politicized garbage because they will just keep doing it.
This is a perfect case to expose because it is so blatant and because it happened in a place where so many people – everybody there – knows what really happened.
Take this case and focus on it, and publicize it. Make it THE test case – the straw that WILL break this lying camel’s back. DEMAND an full explanation. Not ask, demand! If some business faked numbers like this they would be in jail.

TA

“With the Trump administration in power it is time for this corruption to stop. Like right now.
There is no point just moaning about this obvious politicized garbage because they will just keep doing it.”
I agree. We should ask the Trump administration what they are going to do about this possible criminal tampering of the climate data. The Red Team needs to be up and running as soon as possible.

“The Red Team needs to be up and running as soon as possible.”
I guess the Red Team will run around and around in circles until they do eventually discover that NOAA does in fact publish the unadjusted data. Even the handwritten originals.

Extreme Hiatus

“NOAA does in fact publish the unadjusted data. Even the handwritten originals.”
That’s good news Nick, assuming that they have not already ‘fixed’ that data. With their track record, that is a distinct possibility.
Now, back on point: how was this particular case ‘adjusted’ so drastically? By WHO exactly?

Latitude

Nick….””NOAA does in fact publish the unadjusted data””
Paul……”This means that NOAA has adjusted temperatures by an astonishing 2.4F, or about 1.3C.”

Michael Boylan

You’re right. I’m an insurance adjuster and the frozen water pipes claims in the NE were unprecedented. And the damage? A handful have gone over $50,000, with 1/4 over $20,000. This is on probably 80-90 claims over 2 months. While I was in VT and upstate NY, the same happened in ME and NH. It was overwhelming.
There’s a related factor here. None of the damage occurred in homes with natural gas piped in. All oil, propane, electric or wood boilers(10 fires in wood stove chimneys). With cheap, reliable natgas, all these problems were avoided. Something related is cost. Due to cost of propane, oil, electric, people shut off rooms, or have a kerosene heater, or stoke the wood stove, with predictable consequences. I’ve seen some terrible fires, all wood stove related, as they burn 3x the heat as fireplaces, and these old chimneys can’t take it.

Michael Boylan

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. That’s how this should be approached. If caught lying once, on any issue of magnitude, all papers, graphs, studies, should be discarded. They’re not reliable. Why trust their work?

I live near Philadelphia, and that cold snap was not exceptional. The low for the month of January at PHL airport was +3 degrees, lower than usual for the low for the month of January, but not exceptional. Record lows in my part of the country were spotty, not widespread. The cold snap of January 1994 was much more severe. And don’t forget the winters from the one of 1976-1977 to the one of 1984-1985, when my part of the country got much colder.

I meant most of the winters from 1976-1977 to 1984-1985. Philadelphia was warm in the El Nino winter of 1982-1983.

bitchilly

the low at the uhi airport was not exceptional ? there’s a surprise. what were the lows in the nearest rural area donald ?

Philadelphia’s UHI did not change much since 1994. It is a slow-growth city whose population is about 19% below its peak in 1960, in a state that loses Congressional districts every year.
I have a friend in a very cold spot in Upper Gwynedd Township, which on average on clear nights gets a degree colder than Quakertown Municipal Airport (a couple miles west of Quakertown, a large farm town), and the coldest temperature he got was -4 F. PHL airport got to -5 in January 1994, and cold areas outside Philadelphia got well below -10 F in January 1994.
Meanwhile, I checked stats for the whole month of January for Philadelphia. The average temperature was 32.8 F, the normal value (1981-2010 average) for this is 33.0 F. The high for this month in 2018 was 64 F, 4 degrees above the “normal” high for the whole month of January (1981-2010 average) of 60 F. Notably, consideration of daily high temperatures instead of daily average temperatures has been proposed in WUWT because UHI has little effect on most daily high temperatures, and has much more effect on daily low temperatures.

JPGuthrie

Though much has been said about the extreme cold being limited to parts of America, in January, here in Tokyo, we experienced the coldest weather in nearly 50 years. This was very unexpected as few cities in the world are more subject to the UHI effect than Tokyo. The pond in the park arcross from my home froze over, for the first time since the end of the war. My business associates in Germany were also complaining about the extreme winter this year.

A C Osborn

No not just parts of America, Russia, Canada, Brazil & Peru, Europe, Australia Saudi Arabia.
ie different places all over the world.

Pierre Gosselin is drawing attention to a number of recent publications in making some remarkable claims, over at NoTricksZone:
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.THAp8Ocl.dpbs
– In USA, blizzard frequency has increased in the last 55 years, 4-fold
– The eastern half of the USA cooled between the late 50’s and 2015 (and presumably, up to the present)
– 1/3 of the northern hemisphere cooled during 1990 – 2015
– Antarctica and much of the SH has been cooling since 1979
– Greenland, Antarctica and many other locations have seen no warming for 60 years
– Antarctica has not warmed for 200 years
– The Himalayas have not warmed over 300 years
– German railways are blaming intensifying storms from global warming for deteriorating train punctuality and reliability. But storms are getting less not more. This is a false excuse, according to Axel Bojanowski, for slipping standards of once proud German rail engineering.

knr

It is remarkable how much ‘smoke and mirrors ‘ are required to support ‘settled science’

Steve Zell

NOAA to Americans: Don’t believe your thermometers or your frozen pipes or your shivering bodies–it’s warmer than it used to be, and it’s YOUR fault! Trust us!

Yeah 70ºF today in Boston, a record for the day apparently, tomorrow more of the same.

Extreme Hiatus

Nice meaningless distraction Phil. Look, a squirrel!!!
But distraction is all you have.

Phil.

Extreme Hiatus February 20, 2018 at 4:09 pm
Nice meaningless distraction Phil. Look, a squirrel!!!
But distraction is all you have.

So Delingpole posting that NOAA is falsifying data when the monthly average is not particularly cold when a few days early in the month were record cold isn’t a distraction. But my pointing out that today is a record high and tomorrow at 71ºF will likely smash the record set for the day in 1906 (63ºF) is! That’s what monthly averages do, they smooth out daily fluctuations. Unlike Delingpole I won’t charge anyone with falsification if the February average doesn’t show a record heat.

@ Phil. …and here is the reason why Boston is warmer. Does CO2 drive the surface winds of this planet? …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-73.14,36.14,1107/loc=-76.126,33.720

Extreme Hiatus

No Phil. Your warm squirrel is a distraction from discussing the ‘adjustments’ made in the case discussed in this post.
Your other convenient squirrel is your selective focus on the messenger(s) of this particular incident.
Surely you are more interested in finding out the details of this adjustment too, aren’t you? Or would you rather ignore it and chase more squirrels?

Phil.

Delingpole claimed: “NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap” “This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.”
He was claiming that the monthly average for this January was false because in his (or Goddard’s) view it should have been colder because there was a record cold night on Jan 6/7. There was no adjustment just a monthly average, no ‘erasing of a cold snap’, just fake news.

Extreme Hiatus

Well Phil, I guess you will really want to see exactly how NOAA’s monthly average – which you appear to assume is gospel – was calculated, won’t you? And to do that you first must know, in detail, how the individual data points were ‘adjusted,’ won’t you?
This is a test case. Because it happened where so many people live – versus in some remote spot – and so many people apparently mistook cold for warm weather, it is a prime candidate for validation of NOAA’s methods don’t you think?
If not why not?

Doug

Phil we are freezing in WI, send us your warmth

“Well Phil, I guess you will really want to see exactly how NOAA’s monthly average…”
Have you tried to find out? There are plenty of papers written. If you want to follow up your curiosity about the adjustments, you can download and run the code here.

Extreme Hiatus

Nick – Would you also recommend I consult the ‘papers’ and ‘code’ that Madoff offered to explain his Ponzi scheme (before he was caught)?
This is a specific test case. Someone – like Paul Homewood did for 2014 – needs to look at the actual raw and NOAA’s adjusted records which were used to manufacture their monthly ‘average,’ and to investigate their exact reasons for what they did – and then recheck everything to see if they even did what they claim they did. NOAA has no credibility anymore so what they claim can no longer be trusted, period.
Now a person like you, who seems to have endless time on their hands to play with numbers, could do that and I would guess that Anthony would gladly post your analysis. Then it could be properly reviewed here, for starters. That way you could do a great service for your cause – unless it didn’t show what you wish it would.
In my opinion, after following this whole increasingly dishonest pseudoscientific project for too long now, NOAA has no credibility anymore and what they claim can no longer be trusted at all. On other words, your emperor has no clothes and it is a pretty pathetic sight – especially in this cold weather.

Phil.

Extreme Hiatus February 20, 2018 at 5:49 pm
Well Phil, I guess you will really want to see exactly how NOAA’s monthly average – which you appear to assume is gospel – was calculated, won’t you? And to do that you first must know, in detail, how the individual data points were ‘adjusted,’ won’t you?

Well I just took the Accuweather max/min T for Boston, found the daily average, then calculated the average for the month. It came to -2˙ºC which is their published average for the month, so evidently that first cold week was countered by the later warmer spells.

Extreme Hiatus

Thanks for doing that Phil. That data point is a good start for your argument. I’m not sure how many more there are for the question at hand: “January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD”

The monthly summaries available in “past weather”, noted as (CLM), in weather.gov pages for many cities is available. These are unadjusted raw data. They mention statistics for the month as well as (usually) “normal” values for them, which is currently the 1981-2010 average of them.
The one for Boston’s Logan airport for January 2018 says:
High for the month: 61 (no normal for that mentioned)
Low for the month: -2 (no normal for that mentioned)
Mean for the month: 28.6 (normal for this is 29.0)

Alan Tomalty

That is a really neat projection of the winds I am sure that it is at least part computer modeled. until we can have a worldwide accurate non computer modelling of the winds and especially the clouds I will never trust computer climate models. It will never happen because to get precision on such a low scale for clouds you would need a computer with the number of ICs approaching the number of sand grains on all the worlds beaches. Mankind’s hubris into thinking that we could model our planet accurately. But I guess the PhD atmospheric science guys will never give up trying. Our job is to undo all the bad policy decisions from their inaccurate models.

Kristi Silber

Extreme Hiatus: ” NOAA has no credibility anymore so what they claim can no longer be trusted, period.”
If you believe that then you shouldn’t believe any of their data – is that the case? And NASA? Whose data do you accept? Why even do the experiment?
Does it not make sense to find out why they did what they did from them rather than trying to construct what you think they might have thought and done? It could be pretty tricky to follow their footsteps without knowing what they were. Just an idea.

A C Osborn

Phill, keeps caliming “Goddard” when the main piece is about Paul Homewood.
Phil has no clue.

A C Osborn February 21, 2018 at 9:53 am
Phill, keeps caliming “Goddard” when the main piece is about Paul Homewood.

No it isn’t.
The title of this topic is:
“NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap”
Anthony Watts / 23 hours ago February 20, 2018
Via James Delingpole at Breitbart:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ‘yet again’ been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
The Breitbart link at ‘yet again’ directly acknowledges Steve Goddard as the source on it’s first line.

A C Osborn

The NYC & NYS stories are by Paul Homewood.
I read it when he wrote the stories days ago.
Perhaps you should try reading them yourself.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/us-big-freeze-is-adjusted-out-of-existence-by-noaa/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/ghcn-are-even-inflating-current-temperatures-in-new-york/
Then either discuss them with Mr Homewood or come back here and apologise.

4caster

As a former NOAA employee, I remain disgusted with these smarmy self-aggrandizing cesspool-infesting snake-oil salesmen of NOAA. (Alliterative, I like it.) Now let me tell you how I really feel. I witnessed, firsthand, the management of an agency by boobs. There are many fine people who work for NOAA (and also many losers), but when management directs employees to jump, they ask “How high?” The yes-man and yes-woman syndrome, and PC-ness, has been and is out of control. Where is this swamp-draining I keep hearing of? NOAA and the NWS need serious management replacement by people who know science and want to work for the public good. Final comment: the infestation of the atmospheric sciences, especially in the research arena, by extreme leftist liberals which started in earnest in the 1970s continues to this day. It is completely obvious what the agenda of these researchers has been for many years. I resigned from the AMS in the early 1990s because of this, as well as the fact that one of the worst managers in the NWS was running for high office in the AMS. Thank the stars this person did not win, but this person went on to degrade the agency for years before being bounced out for fraud, but went on to another NOAA agency and no doubt ran that one into the ground as well. NOAA has been acting in a shameful fashion for many years.

And Donald Trump has yet to nominate a NOAA Administrator who the Senate would confirm (with only 51 votes needed nowadays). The current NOAA Administrator is an “acting” one, promoted from within NOAA.
Trump did nominate a NOAA Administrator (AKA “dual-hatted” as Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere), but his nominee was not a scientist but a lawyer, who also is CEO of a private weather forecasting company that has lobbied for legislation removing the National Weather Service from many forecasting duties that private weather companies also do.

Gunga Din

A new record high for my little spot on the globe was set today. I don’t know the official number but my front porch says it got up to 76.6.
Looking at the NWS, it says (or rather implies) the old record was 68 set in 2016.
The problem.
They don’t show ties anymore. 2016 did tie the old record. But it was actually “set” in 1891.
Why show the most recent year of a tied record rather than the year it was actually set?

Gunga Din

PS This morning TWC was going spastic over the possibility of record highs in the eastern US.
Yet on their “Local on the 8’s” they STILL don’t include the record high or low for the day. They used to. Why did they stop?

Tom Dayton

Yet again, here is one of the great many explanations of how temperature measurements are adjusted: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

A C Osborn

Yet another discussion explaining how it all works using the very data that is in question.

Kristi Silber

A C Osborn – I’m afraid I don’t understand what data you propose they use, if not the data in quesiton.

2hotel9

How can they be “caught” doing what they always do? You can’t “catch” water running down hill, it is simply what it does. Come on. Water is wet, the sky is blue, climate “scientists” lie. That is just how it is.

John M

Interesting graph in this post.
About 8-10 years ago the Audubon society had a press release playing up the increase in January temperatures and the subsequent impact on birds. They picked the mid 60s as the starting point.
I guess we can see why.
Do you think they’ll issue an update now that more data has come in?

Stevek

Pretty soon they will adjust the past so much that will hit absolute zero.

Hugs

Well, they need to keep the Heller co-efficient (adjustment / CO2 in K/ppm) constant, so it depends directly on future emissions.

Weather forecast data for my local station is routinely warmer than than the actual recorded temperatures. The forecast data gets into the record books. Not the “actual” recorded temperatures.
Why is that?

Pamela Gray

Argument over minutiae. So I repeat, we are in an interstadial warm period. We should be warm with little ticks up and some down during the peak we are in. Some of these ticks up may be decades long. The downward ticks likewise. We are lucky to live during this period. It is a blessing. Boggles the mind that any human would complain or panic, or believe colder is better or more natural. Those who think this way?
Idiots.

TheLastDemocrat

Wasn’t there a similar story out of Australia in the recent couple of years?
Someone figured out that there was a floor in the cold temps for a cold season.

Davis

Seasonally adjusted temperatures! YEE HAW, going to be 20C year round, no more cold winter or stifling summer.

I have been disappointed with the Trump’s administration about the inability to audit the NOAA organization and its procedures. You should remember that in composing the global temperatures, they need data outside the USA. It would be very easy to find out, if NOAA has altered the temperature data originating from other national organizations. There have been blogs, which show huge differences between the NOAA and the original data graphs.

Lars P.

oh, it is enough if they first close the GISS, those were adjusting the adjustments… One has to start somewhere…

Frederik Michiels

now i know why we freeze our butts off in tha “hottest year evah”

Lars P.

Well, what do you expect? We live in Adjustocene, this is how ‘science’ works in this era?
Temperature readings need to be adjusted to fit the theory. This is a must. For some small temperature deviations we should not think we are safe and pollute the planet with plant food?
Sea level data need to be adjusted to fit the adjusted temperature data. This is very clear and straightforward. Those pesky satellites would otherwise malfunction.
ARGO – sea temperature data needs to be aligned with temperature and sea level data and thus needs to be adjusted.
Everything must be calibrated, adjusted and aligned, this is ‘science’ where data is adjusted to fit the theory: Adjustocene.

Yup global warming is man-madecomment image

Tom Anderson

It may be time to stop wringing our hands about fixing or “refining” the record. It is a federal crime for a custodian of US government records to willfully and unlawfully mutilate, obliterate, or falsify ” such a record.
Here is the statute. It is a felony.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
We have a U.S. Attorney General’s office qualified to prosecute this. How about sending a letter.

Kristi Silber

Absolutely! Go for it. I think that’s an excellent idea – get it all out on the table before a court. Will people go with the decision, though? Would a finding for the plaintiff settle the issue, or just be a sign of the extent of the conspiracy? If there’s a problem, it needs to be addressed.

Peter s

I have downloaded full sets of GISS temperature anomalies from WFT, some years apart and of course none of the anomalies line up when you sit them side by side in a spreadsheet. Anomalies around the 1800’s are now lower and the more recent anomalies higher. I would assume that WFT would pull data in on a monthly basis in lieu of a total refresh. So I am not sure whether the adjustments are carried out by WFT or GISS?

Peter s

Oops I meant NOAA not GISS

Marie Marston Hale

That’s a BALD FACED LIE by a BALD faced LIAR.
“Nick Stokes February 20, 2018 at 9:43 pm
“Except Jones and Mann who delete it”
Jones and Mann have never been custodians of raw data.”

OK, tell us more. What raw data were they custodians of?

Is it relevant that the NOAA January average temperatures for the Northeast United States, the ones that made the chart in this post, show 1989-2003 at 23.53F and 2004-2018 at 22.97F? So Januarys in the second half of the 30 year climate period 1989-2018 were 0.56F (0.31C) cooler than in the first half.
January max was 32.39F in 1989-2003 and 31.67F in 2004-2018. January min was 14.69F in 1989-2003 and 14.26F in 2004-2018.
For the past 10 years, 2009-2018, the average temp in the US Northeast was 22.46F. In 1906-1915 it was 22.60F. In 1932-1941 it was 22.83F.
Not surprising since winters in much of the northern hemisphere have been getting colder for the last few decades.