Frequency of Winter Thaws

[michsnowfreak]

Why do both of these data sets cool the time period before the middle of the 20th century and warm the recent period? This gives plenty of fodder for skeptics, especially with UHI creeping into suburban areas from the 70s onward. Makes me wonder too as I lean skeptical on any extraordinary claims, like CAGW. 

When the 1981-2010 averages came out, I ran the EXACT RAW DATA for DTW and compared it to the normals by NCDC, and EVERY SINGLE MONTH their new "average" was between 0.3F and 0.6F WARMER than the raw data. I guess thats how they "quality control" things.

[The_Global_Warmer]

When the 1981-2010 averages came out, I ran the EXACT RAW DATA for DTW and compared it to the normals by NCDC, and EVERY SINGLE MONTH their new "average" was between 0.3F and 0.6F WARMER than the raw data. I guess thats how they "quality control" things.

 

 

Did you read why or do you just want to sound paranoid?

[ORH_wxman]

Did you read why or do you just want to sound paranoid?

 

 

I would be interested in reading why a station like DTW would have to be adjusted upwards in the 1981-2010 timeframe when something like TOBS is not an issue...and any UHI adjustment for DTW would be downward. Perhaps I missed a another factor.

 

To my knowledge, they don't have explanations for individual sites. Just overall adjustments...unless someone can point me to a link.

[donsutherland1]

Two additional papers regarding adjustments:

 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-01R-27Jul12.pdf

 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf

[michsnowfreak]

I would be interested in reading why a station like DTW would have to be adjusted upwards in the 1981-2010 timeframe when something like TOBS is not an issue...and any UHI adjustment for DTW would be downward. Perhaps I missed a another factor.

 

To my knowledge, they don't have explanations for individual sites. Just overall adjustments...unless someone can point me to a link.

 

Harry and I were discussing it on his board when the new normals came out, and I remember something struck me as odd (NOWdata wasnt matching new NCDC norms) so then we did some calculating and voila....temps were adjusted UPWARD every month despite the UHI factor. Record cold blasts, UHI isnt a factor at DTW (see the record lows of -14F on Jan 6 & Jan 7)...but in more run of the mill airmasses on calm, clear nights, it is a big factor. You want to hear a UHI rant, just ask Bill Deedler, probably the only man alive who knows more about Detroit/Southeast Michigan climate than I do

 

Anyway....here is the 50F+ data for Detroit. Now, this has NO bearing on how warm/cold, severe/benign the winter is, as a few mild winters had no 50F days and several very cold winters had a few. But if we want to do winter thaws, Id say 50F+ is a good starting point.

 

...............50F+ days........Highs AOB 32F....

1900s- 4.1 per winter............

1910s- 5.2 per winter...........

1920s- 3.9 per winter..........

1930s- 7.6 per winter..........42.3 days per winter

1940s- 6.1 per winter..........50.2 days per winter

1950s- 6.7 per winter..........43.6 days per winter

1960s- 5.4 per winter..........47.4 days per winter

1970s- 5.2 per winter..........51.3 days per winter

1980s- 6.0 per winter..........46.2 days per winter

1990s- 8.8 per winter..........39.4 days per winter

2000s- 7.6 per winter..........44.6 days per winter

2010s- 6.3 per winter (first 4 yrs ONLY)

 

Top 10 winters (DJF) with the MOST 50F+ days 

01.) 1881-82: 19

02.) 1889-90: 18

03.) 1931-32: 16

03.) 1975-76: 16

03.) 1982-83: 16

03.) 1998-99: 16

07.) 1932-33: 14

08.) 1949-50: 14

09.) 2001-02: 14

10.) 1953-54: 13

10.) 1994-95: 13

10.) 1999-00: 13

 

Winters (DJF) with NO 50F+ days

1903-04

1919-20

1934-35

1944-45

1954-55

1958-59

1986-87

2009-10

 

Most Days with max temps of 32F or colder

84 days – 1880-81

84 days – 1903-04

78 days – 1977-78

75 days – 1919-20

73 days – 1874-75

72 days – 1892-93

71 days – 1976-77

68 days – 2010-11

67 days – 1898-99

66 days – 1981-82

65 days – 1895-96

65 days – 1947-48

64 days – 1925-26

64 days – 1935-36

64 days – 2002-03

62 days – 1944-45

62 days – 1962-63

62 days – 1995-96

61 days – 1887-88

61 days – 1900-01

 

Least Days with max temps of 32F or colder

12 days – 1881-82

16 days – 2011-12

20 days – 1931-32

20 days – 1997-98

23 days – 1901-02

24 days – 1986-87

26 days – 1918-19

27 days – 1889-90

27 days – 1930-31

28 days – 1932-33

28 days – 1982-83

29 days – 1948-49

31 days – 1953-54

32 days – 1952-53

32 days – 1990-91

32 days – 1991-92

32 days – 1998-99

34 days – 1920-21

34 days – 2005-06

35 days – 1957-58

[The_Global_Warmer]

 

 

So you have no idea why they did but are still questioning their motives?

[Jonger]

 

Harry and I were discussing it on his board when the new normals came out, and I remember something struck me as odd (NOWdata wasnt matching new NCDC norms) so then we did some calculating and voila....temps were adjusted UPWARD every month despite the UHI factor. Record cold blasts, UHI isnt a factor at DTW (see the record lows of -14F on Jan 6 & Jan 7)...but in more run of the mill airmasses on calm, clear nights, it is a big factor. You want to hear a UHI rant, just ask Bill Deedler, probably the only man alive who knows more about Detroit/Southeast Michigan climate than I do

 

Anyway....here is the 50F+ data for Detroit. Now, this has NO bearing on how warm/cold, severe/benign the winter is, as a few mild winters had no 50F days and several very cold winters had a few. But if we want to do winter thaws, Id say 50F+ is a good starting point.

 

...............50F+ days........Highs AOB 32F....

1900s- 4.1 per winter............

1910s- 5.2 per winter...........

1920s- 3.9 per winter..........

1930s- 7.6 per winter..........42.3 days per winter

1940s- 6.1 per winter..........50.2 days per winter

1950s- 6.7 per winter..........43.6 days per winter

1960s- 5.4 per winter..........47.4 days per winter

1970s- 5.2 per winter..........51.3 days per winter

1980s- 6.0 per winter..........46.2 days per winter

1990s- 8.8 per winter..........39.4 days per winter

2000s- 7.6 per winter..........44.6 days per winter

2010s- 6.3 per winter (first 4 yrs ONLY)

 

Top 10 winters (DJF) with the MOST 50F+ days 

01.) 1881-82: 19

02.) 1889-90: 18

03.) 1931-32: 16

03.) 1975-76: 16

03.) 1982-83: 16

03.) 1998-99: 16

07.) 1932-33: 14

08.) 1949-50: 14

09.) 2001-02: 14

10.) 1953-54: 13

10.) 1994-95: 13

10.) 1999-00: 13

 

Winters (DJF) with NO 50F+ days

1903-04

1919-20

1934-35

1944-45

1954-55

1958-59

1986-87

2009-10

 

Most Days with max temps of 32F or colder

84 days – 1880-81

84 days – 1903-04

78 days – 1977-78

75 days – 1919-20

73 days – 1874-75

72 days – 1892-93

71 days – 1976-77

68 days – 2010-11

67 days – 1898-99

66 days – 1981-82

65 days – 1895-96

65 days – 1947-48

64 days – 1925-26

64 days – 1935-36

64 days – 2002-03

62 days – 1944-45

62 days – 1962-63

62 days – 1995-96

61 days – 1887-88

61 days – 1900-01

 

Least Days with max temps of 32F or colder

12 days – 1881-82

16 days – 2011-12

20 days – 1931-32

20 days – 1997-98

23 days – 1901-02

24 days – 1986-87

26 days – 1918-19

27 days – 1889-90

27 days – 1930-31

28 days – 1932-33

28 days – 1982-83

29 days – 1948-49

31 days – 1953-54

32 days – 1952-53

32 days – 1990-91

32 days – 1991-92

32 days – 1998-99

34 days – 1920-21

34 days – 2005-06

35 days – 1957-58

 

I remember another poster mentioning the TOB continuing to contaminate measurement records, no idea why ANY modern temp data set would be adjusted upward.

 

That's slam dunk data right there Josh...  Thanks for doing all the work.

[blizzard1024]

Why would NASA and the NCDC commit fraud over this?

 

Why would NASA and the NCDC commit fraud over this?

 

I am not saying anyone is committing fraud. But it does make skeptical folks wonder when looking at the raw data. I am talking

about non-scientific people, ones who might believe in fraud and conspiracy theories.  It gives them more fodder. I read the paper and it does make sense. thanks. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am not saying anyone is committing fraud. But it does make skeptical folks wonder when looking at the raw data. I am talking

about non-scientific people, ones who might believe in fraud and conspiracy theories.  It gives them more fodder. I read the paper and it does make sense. thanks. 

 

No problem.

 

Don't thank me tho Man.  Bluewave or Dons posted it.

[michsnowfreak]

I am not saying anyone is committing fraud. But it does make skeptical folks wonder when looking at the raw data. I am talking

about non-scientific people, ones who might believe in fraud and conspiracy theories.  It gives them more fodder. I read the paper and it does make sense. thanks. 

Nor was I. It just made no sense to me why an average is not the average of the data. Its why I rarely read this climate change forum. You post any data or god forbid question anything that goes against warm and you get jumped on. What reason have I to be "paranoid" of anything? My body knows no difference between a few tenths of a degree up or down...I get to enjoy the 4 seasons every year. Fall color is always in October...spring greenup is usually in mid-late April (the last 2 years however have been odd with record early greenup in 2012 and 2 weeks late in 2013, so a 6-week difference from '12 to '13)...in summer i stay indoors when its above 85F so its rare I can find a summer I say has been amazing (though 2013 was pretty nice). The only notable change of our climate has been a notable increase in snowfall. Thats exactly what I want, so if its due to climate change, HERE HERE! Oh, and I do my part to help the environment (I cannot control others tho), so I have no qualms in saying that climate change is of very little concern to me.

[ORH_wxman]

Nor was I. It just made no sense to me why an average is not the average of the data. Its why I rarely read this climate change forum. You post any data or god forbid question anything that goes against warm and you get jumped on and told to read this, look at that, etc etc. What reason have I to be "paranoid" of anything? My body knows no difference between a few tenths of a degree up or down...I get to enjoy the 4 seasons every year. The only notable change of our climate has been a notable increase in snowfall. Thats exactly what I want, so if its due to climate change, HERE HERE! Oh, and I do my part to help the environment (I cannot control others tho), so I have no qualms in saying that climate change is of very little concern to me.

 

 

 

I decided to look at average Michigan temperatures in the winter...keep in mind this is NCDC data, so it is not the raw data of a place like DTW. It has already been adjusted.

 

However, even with the adjustments, it is interesting to note how steep the negative trend in temperatures were from the 1930s-1980s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now here is the actual winter temps for Detroit...raw. Pulled from the F6 data that has all the highs and lows for Detroit. You can see how the mid-20th century trend is even steeper than the NCDC state version of anomalies, and the overall trend is pretty neutral. Only slightly positive.

 

 

So Detroit is a spot that really hasn't seen a large change in winter temperatures over the past century (only about +0.05C per decade)...and basically no change if you started in the 1930s

 

 

[bluewave]

This post by Christopher Burt was the best explanation of why the older data from

the 20's and 30's was cooled across the board.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=75

 

Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis?

Jeff Masters and I recently received an interesting email from Ken Towe who has been researching the NCDC historical temperature database and came across what appeared to be some startling inconsistencies. Namely that the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past. Here is why.

An Example of the Inconsistency

Here is a typical example of what Ken uncovered. Below is a copy of the national weather data summary for February 1934. If we look at, say Arizona, for the month we see that the state average temperature for that month was 52.0°F. 

 

The state-by-state climate summary for the U.S. in February 1934. It may be hard to read, but the average temperature for the state of Arizona is listed as 52.0°F From Monthly Weather Review.

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:

 

Here we see a screen capture of the current NCDC long-term temperature analysis for Arizona during Februaries. Note in the bar at the bottom that for 1934 they use a figure of 48.9°.

Ken looked at entire years of data from the 1920s and 1930s for numerous different states and found that this ‘cooling’ of the old data was fairly consistent across the board. In fact he produced some charts showing such. Here is an example for the entire year of 1934 for Arizona:

 

The chart above shows how many degrees cooler each monthly average temperature for the entire state of Arizona for each month in 1934 was compared to the current NCDC database (i.e. versus what the actual monthly temperatures were in the original Climatological Data Summaries published in 1934 by the USWB (U.S. Weather Bureau). Note, for instance, how February is 3.1°F cooler in the current database compared to the historical record. Table created by Ken Towe.

So Why the Difference in current NCDC records and past USWB records?

The basic reason for the difference is that the NCDC has begun to switch over from using what they call the ‘Traditional Climate Division Data Set’ (TCDD) to a new ‘Gridded Divisional Dataset’ (GrDD) that takes into account inconsistencies in the TCDD. Here is a summary of what was wrong with using the TCDD data sets to determine temperature averages and trends. This is a quote from ‘Transitioning from the traditional divisional dataset to the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily gridded divisional dataset’ by Chris Fenimore, Derek Arndt, Karin Gleason, and Richard R. Heim Jr., NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC, Asheville, NC:

“The GrDD is designed to address the following general issues inherent in the TCDD: 

1. For the TCDD, each divisional value from 1931-present is simply the arithmetic average of the station data within it, a computational practice that results in a bias when a division is spatially under sampled in a month (e.g., because some stations did not report) or is climatologically inhomogeneous in general (e.g., due to large variations in topography).

2. For the TCDD, all divisional values before 1931 stem from state averages published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rather than from actual station observations, producing an artificial discontinuity in both the mean and variance for 1895-1930 (Guttman and Quayle, 1996). 

3. In the TCDD, many divisions experienced a systematic change in average station location and elevation during the 20th Century, resulting in spurious historical trends in some regions (Keim et al., 2003; Keim et al., 2005; Allard et al., 2009).

4. Finally, none of the TCDD’s station-based temperature records contain adjustments for historical changes in observation time, station location, or temperature instrumentation, inhomogeneities which further bias temporal trends (Peterson et al., 1998).” 

The new GrDD is based upon 25 square kilometer (about 9.6 square miles) gridded divisions rather than the traditional regional climate divisions used in the TCDD. The original raw data of specific weather stations has not been changed, but for the purpose of the GrDD analysis the temperature assigned to a grid that happens to include a specific weather station will not match the actual station measurement since the gridded area may include several different weather stations and will also be weighted to take local topography and urbanization (heat island) issues into account. The complete transformation to the GrDD from the TCDD is slated to be complete in 2013 but has been used to some degree already since about 2007.

The impact on the long-term climate record is summarized here (from the same document cited above):

IMPACTS (PRELIMINARY FINDINGS) 

Using the methods mentioned above, we identified the climate divisions, states and regions for which the data are impacted the most by this transition. In the aggregate, the GrDD dataset is slightly cooler and wetter when compared to the TCDD, but significant regional differences are apparent (Fig. 1). Typically, the greatest deviations occur in areas with large elevation differences, divisions which border Canada and Mexico, and divisions lacking a large network of stations early in the record.”

Here are two maps illustrating how the change has affected the long-term means for temperature and precipitation by traditional divisional units in the U.S.:

 

The report concludes with the following comment:

CONCLUSION 

”The GrDD is a modern, quality-assured database that improves upon the historical monthly temperature and precipitation data that are currently available with the TCDD. Use of these data will improve our understanding of observed changes in climate across the contiguous U.S. (CONUS). Regression techniques used to derive pre-1930 divisional data in the TCDD have been replaced by real station data in the GrDD, improving comparisons made to early 20th Century data. Because of the different algorithms used, slight variances in temperature and precipitation averages may be seen throughout the data record. The average change in trend was about 0.06°F per century. The annual temperature trend in each division is between -0.3°F and +0.3°F per century and only three climate divisions had differences in their mean larger than 0.3°F per century. In terms of precipitation, the mean change in slope is slightly negative for the annual period”.

 

 

He also had another great post showing temperature trends for each state since 1895

with places like Michigan close to unchanged and the famous Southeast warming hole.

You can also see how Michigan and many other states have had steady rises in

precipitation which would account for the increase in heavy snow and rain that

people have been discussing.

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=68

 

temperature

 

 

precipitation % change

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

blue wave you are the best Man.  I hope that satisfies everyone.

 

this is why looking at one's backyard can really mess one's perception up. I learned this when I first got here.

 

Using the methods mentioned above, we identified the climate divisions, states and regions for which the data are impacted the most by this transition. In the aggregate, the GrDD dataset is slightly cooler and wetter when compared to the TCDD, but significant regional differences are apparent (Fig. 1). Typically, the greatest deviations occur in areas with large elevation differences, divisions which border Canada and Mexico, and divisions lacking a large network of stations early in the record.”

 

[bluewave]

blue wave you are the best Man.  I hope that satisfies everyone.

 

this is why looking at one's backyard can really mess one's perception up. I learned this when I first got here.

 

I give the credit here to Christopher Burt IMHO is one of the best weather historians out there today. His book

and posts on wunderground make for great reading.

[TerryM]

No intent to be combative but wouldn't Detroit with it's rapid upswing in dirty manufacturing followed by the precipitous loss of the same make it one of the most difficult regions to try to derive trends from?

Other locals face the same kinds of problems. When I moved to Riverside California in 1963 there was no smog problem and the orange growers were firing their smudge pots every winter to prevent frost damage. By 66/67 smog had syphoned in from LA, the mountains and stars were invisible & growers didn't worry about frost. By the early 80's smog was in full retreat & you could breath the air rather than look at it & frost was again affecting what was left of the orange industry.

Whatever the temperature records show in that area they've been so distorted by the on and off smog situation that any multi year comparisons would be meaningless & I'm sure the same could be said for Detroit.

When a region has been growing steadily removing that signal from the background may be difficult, but when boom - bust situations occur the record is probably too distorted to be of any value.

Terry

[michsnowfreak]

I decided to look at average Michigan temperatures in the winter...keep in mind this is NCDC data, so it is not the raw data of a place like DTW. It has already been adjusted.

 

However, even with the adjustments, it is interesting to note how steep the negative trend in temperatures were from the 1930s-1980s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now here is the actual winter temps for Detroit...raw. Pulled from the F6 data that has all the highs and lows for Detroit. You can see how the mid-20th century trend is even steeper than the NCDC state version of anomalies, and the overall trend is pretty neutral. Only slightly positive.

 

 

So Detroit is a spot that really hasn't seen a large change in winter temperatures over the past century (only about +0.05C per decade)...and basically no change if you started in the 1930s

 

 

Wow cool work! Thanks!

[michsnowfreak]

No intent to be combative but wouldn't Detroit with it's rapid upswing in dirty manufacturing followed by the precipitous loss of the same make it one of the most difficult regions to try to derive trends from?

Other locals face the same kinds of problems. When I moved to Riverside California in 1963 there was no smog problem and the orange growers were firing their smudge pots every winter to prevent frost damage. By 66/67 smog had syphoned in from LA, the mountains and stars were invisible & growers didn't worry about frost. By the early 80's smog was in full retreat & you could breath the air rather than look at it & frost was again affecting what was left of the orange industry.

Whatever the temperature records show in that area they've been so distorted by the on and off smog situation that any multi year comparisons would be meaningless & I'm sure the same could be said for Detroit.

When a region has been growing steadily removing that signal from the background may be difficult, but when boom - bust situations occur the record is probably too distorted to be of any value.

Terry

DET was in the far northeast corner of Detroit in a sort of residential area (away from downtown/factory) and DTW is in rural/suburban Romulus 30 miles SE of downtown Detroit. Plus if you scan coop data its a good reference/comparison point. No doubt factories can alter temperatures slightly, but we are talking few tenths of a degree...it will not alter trends...those are pretty clear cut. Some of most notoriously winterless, warm winters occurred in the 19th century (as did a few of our harshest). Winters were lopsidedly mild in the 1930s and 1950s (the '40s werent as mild but were unbelievably snowless). The 1960s were cold but not too snowy...then BOOM the 1970s inundated with severe cold and heavy snow (so people think thats "normal"). Thats what I mean by trends. And yes it is locally, not globally.

[Jonger]

No intent to be combative but wouldn't Detroit with it's rapid upswing in dirty manufacturing followed by the precipitous loss of the same make it one of the most difficult regions to try to derive trends from?

Other locals face the same kinds of problems. When I moved to Riverside California in 1963 there was no smog problem and the orange growers were firing their smudge pots every winter to prevent frost damage. By 66/67 smog had syphoned in from LA, the mountains and stars were invisible & growers didn't worry about frost. By the early 80's smog was in full retreat & you could breath the air rather than look at it & frost was again affecting what was left of the orange industry.

Whatever the temperature records show in that area they've been so distorted by the on and off smog situation that any multi year comparisons would be meaningless & I'm sure the same could be said for Detroit.

When a region has been growing steadily removing that signal from the background may be difficult, but when boom - bust situations occur the record is probably too distorted to be of any value.

Terry

 

Detroit has very little smog issues, you might want to check with Windsor records, but the natural wind flow would keep the record keeping locations free of air pollution.

 

Urban heat island from the 1920's onward probably distort the true records upward far more than any other factor. The city is often several degrees warmer on a summer night than surrounding green areas.

[Jonger]

blue wave you are the best Man.  I hope that satisfies everyone.

 

this is why looking at one's backyard can really mess one's perception up. I learned this when I first got here.

 

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:

 

[ORH_wxman]

However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published:

 

 

 

 

It is adjusted for TOBs which gives a warm bias in the 1930s. You cannot take raw data if the TOBs is different....if it doesn't change, then its fine. (like for Boston, it remained the same) But many coops used to do a TOBs in the afternoon which double counted an excessively hot day. This is why larger scale data like state data is adjusted.

 

 

It is a mathematical fact that it creates a warm bias in the earlier decades. There is no reason to dispute it.

[Jonger]

It is adjusted for TOBs which gives a warm bias in the 1930s. You cannot take raw data if the TOBs is different....if it doesn't change, then its fine. (like for Boston, it remained the same) But many coops used to do a TOBs in the afternoon which double counted an excessively hot day. This is why larger scale data like state data is adjusted.

 

 

It is a mathematical fact that it creates a warm bias in the earlier decades. There is no reason to dispute it.

 

Do you know why current data is adjusted upward? I'll link the chart I found earlier, but this practice is still continuing apparently.

[ORH_wxman]

Do you know why current data is adjusted upward? I'll link the chart I found earlier, but this practice is still continuing apparently.

 

 

Current data would be adjusted up if there were siting changes. (i.e. from lower elevation to higher, or from more urban to more rural) I dont personally like those types of changes since they are often quite subjective, but they don't seem to be a huge impact. The best way to avoid them is to just start a new record at the new site and not try and "splice" them together.

 

I do know that recent TOBS adjustments have been about 5x what Menne et al showed their effect to be in the past 20 years...so I am not sure what that is all about. However, even if you slice the recent TOBS adjustments down to the levels of Menne et al, it doesn't change the U.S. temperautres all that much. Perhaps about 0.08C cooler in the past decade.

[TerryM]

Jong

Is it your contention that there is a conspiracy intent on altering the temperature records? If so is this conspiracy limited to the United States, North America or does it extend around the world.

If there is a conspiracy we should all be concerned, if not perhaps we should move on to some other facet of the problem.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Jong

Is it your contention that there is a conspiracy intent on altering the temperature records? If so is this conspiracy limited to the United States, North America or does it extend around the world.

If there is a conspiracy we should all be concerned, if not perhaps we should move on to some other facet of the problem.

Terry

 

 

Yes.  He has been doing this for years.  And when he is proven wrong he comes back and does it again.  We can call that an action.  If he denies it now that would be words and actions speak louder.

 

So yes.  He once said the NCDC releases their monthly data based on if it was cool or warm.  If it's cool they release it later.  If it's a warm month they do it faster.  What does that tell you.

[skierinvermont]

Jonger, in addition to all the excellent responses above I'd like to point out that when you lower historical temperatures it makes current anomalies go up, which I think you are forgetting.

 

You've been casting aspersions for years and every time they are disproved and every few months you bring them up again.

[TerryM]

Friv

I was/am trying to have Jong explain to all just how massive the conspiracy is in his perception. I don't dismiss every conspiracy theory out of hand. People do conspire & sometimes they get caught. I can't think of a reason for government agencies to lie about the weather but maybe Jong can inform us.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv

I was/am trying to have Jong explain to all just how massive the conspiracy is in his perception. I don't dismiss every conspiracy theory out of hand. People do conspire & sometimes they get caught. I can't think of a reason for government agencies to lie about the weather but maybe Jong can inform us.

Terry

 

Terry, I know.

 

But this is the tuck tail and run part. 

 

In a few months he will do it again so you can ask again then.