NOAA's "improved" historical temperature measurements
I don’t know how much people is believed in what is happening in Katowice. I just watched a great video by Tomasz Wroblewski on this subject. The commentators raised the question of what evidence Tomasz has against "global warming". There is a lot of evidence, but Tomasz looked at this topic from a psychological point of view, correctly comparing it with the new religion.
So anybody who looking for evidence will find it on the Internet.
Here I can mention perhaps the most important thing I encountered when I started studying this phenomenon back in the 1990s. I started by researching sources. There is an organization such as The Global Historical Climatology Network, which began collecting global climate statistics more than 20 years ago. I downloaded several data of thousand weather stations from this portal. The second version of the data appeared in 1997, the third version in 2011.
Of course, I had to develop a special computer program to read and study these data, but this effort paid off. Thus, I received obvious evidence, probably unknown to anyone, because I had not yet encountered such evidence from other people.
Well, versions two and three of the statistics explain that they're "homogenized." It means that for some reasons "correctors" have decided that historical data are unreliable - inaccurate measuring instruments, possible registration errors, etc. With a strange intuition, "correctors" have come to the conclusion that the earlier data indicating a temperature drop in the historical period under study that was burdened with errors. Therefore, it was necessary to decrease the temperatures of the previous period to prove that the average temperature in the world is increasing. They seem to have chosen the most convenient period in the last ninety years, during which (according to their calculations) the temperature should have risen by about 2 degrees.
Extrapolating this trend, they threaten us with flooding on the continent and a general thermal disaster.
In order not to bother the reader anymore, I will present below some typical "corrections" made by these "scientists". Of course there are thousands of stations, but I cannot place them all here (the blue line means "homogenized" data).
The data I uploaded also included several dozens of Polish cities, for example:
Częstochowa is famous for its miracles, but why should they have happened in 1952-1970? However, according to "correctors", someone had to falsify the data of that period, otherwise why would they "homogenize" them?
The "correctors" did not spare even the oldest in the world, the venerable weather station in the Netherlands, De Bilt. Here they faced a more serious problem because the warmest years are in the middle of the schedule. Just follow the trend line from 1850-1990 and it will show the temperature drop. But "homogenizing" effectively removes this obstacle!
And now the venerable, old meteorological station - Paris.
As you can see, each station, depending on its location, has its own microclimate - so the Count de Bilta, located near the sea, is different from the Count of Paris, located inland. You can find other forms in Vienna, Warsaw or Stockholm, but I won't be able to place all these varieties here.
Suffice it to say that the graph of Paris has a completely straight line of trend - from the temperature of 10.64 in 1758 to 10.65 in 2000. As for the year 242, this is too small a change for "intermediaries"; therefore, between 1758 and 1775 they homogenized the temperature down by about 2 degrees.
Most of the work was done by the scientific "homogenizers" in the USA, where most of the weather stations are located, and most of them point to historical temperature declines.
I hope these charts have provided answers to your doubts. The whole argument of "global warming" theories hung on them. Comparison of baseline data with "adjusted" data immediately refutes the thesis about global warming of the last decades. We see the means by which this goal was achieved. Perhaps using reliable data would show a reverse trend, but I am not taking up this challenge because the data from several thousand stations are often incomplete, and they also refer to different time periods. Also, how do you calculate the global average when most of these stations are concentrated in areas that have been civilized and populated for a long time? Of course, we now have satellites that measure temperature around the world, but as we know, climate cycles are repeated every few decades. We also know that the trend changes depending on when we start to calculate it. For example, a weather station in Iceland:
As you can see, between 1882 and 2017 the Aukeyri station showed an average warming of 1.49 degrees, and the temperature recorded between 1930 and 2017 indicates an average cooling of -0.52 degrees!
Do we need more proof? When Napoleon asked the commander of the fortress why he had surrendered without firing cannons, he answered - that for several reasons. He began to calculate them - first of all, there was no gunpowder. Napoleon interrupted that it was enough for him.
In the case of the myth of global warming, should we find more evidence? If someone wants to check it out, go to the website:
Hopefully, the statistics for the first and second variants will still be available there.
In this article, I am publishing my first research results. When the Durban Climate Summit was held in 2011, nature was generous to help those who believe in "global warming". As every year, Natal was rainy in November and, as usual, floods flooded several indigenous villages. The whole world was touched by photographs of flood victims and mobilized to fight "global warming".
I sent diagrams of temperatures and rainfall recorded in Durban since 1885 to the local press. This graph can be seen above, in table 2, which shows that the average temperature in Durban has decreased by 0.67 degrees over this period. The second graph, showing the amount of precipitation during this period, is shown below.
Monthly data show that in November 2011 precipitation was above average, but the long-term trend shows a significant decrease in precipitation between 1885 and 2017.
What does "global warming" have to do with it? But not a single media outlet has commented on this.
In 2013, the climate summit in Warsaw was disrupted by an even more dramatic event - a typhoon in the Philippines. Of course, such typhoons are a common phenomenon in this latitude. But it "fell out of the sky" again just in time for the summit organizers. Television stations around the world showed a crying Philippine delegate talking about "global warming" and people gathered for a moment of silence to celebrate this incredible event.
The temperature statistics for the Philippines are very poor, but I was able to get one representative weather station there.
As you can see, the average temperature in the Philippines has dropped by 0.22 degrees in the last 67 years. However, the myth of "global warming" is being perpetuated. I sent this comment to the Polish media, but of course it was not published anywhere.
Author: Krzysztof Edmund Wojciechowicz
Source data of graphs:ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/
This Russian-speaking climatologist confirmed these data and these corrections:: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna_Morozova
But she couldn't explain the reason for so much selective homogenization:https://science-freaks.livejournal.com/2996297.html?thread=73692233#t73692233
I even offered her money for a specific explanation of this "selective corrections", when she said that "in my free time, I talk about my professional experience to anonymous people on the Internet for free, but anonymous people ask (!) for special treatment of their cognitive abilities". She prefered irresponsibility over my proposed reward for a concrete explanation of this selectivity of NOAA's "corrections".