NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

So, as I has almost zero scientific bones in my body I wanted to put this before ATS to try and understand what exactly is going on here. I've heard the climate hysteria, the shrieking of carbon-nazi's like Al ("Invented the internet") Gore, heard of the academics being censored for disagreeing with climate change, etc, etc.

So now is NOAA fudging numbers to "go along" with party lines? And then changing them back??? What gives here. For us unscientific types it looks like BS and snow-jobs to achieve certain objectives.

Is the climate changing? Personally I haven't seen it but am willing to look at information that is not being pushed as an attempt scarf money in a carbon tax scam. I mean really what good does it do to tax the crap out of western nations while countries like China and India could give a rip?

Anyway, supposedly NOAA has changing numbers again.

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists.

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

OK NOAA say's it getting hotter than ever before. At least until they changed the numbers. Now we have:



So what's the deal. For us folks sitting on the sidelines of the climate change fiasco it appears that nobody is above lying and manipulating numbers to achieve some (nefarious) end. How can anyone believe anything about supposed horrors of climate chaos when we don't see it and mostly it looks like another tax scam to hose people out of money?

“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

Please before all you climate change advocates go ballistic this is simply trying to understand what's really going on here. Nobody wants the earth to destroy mankind. For those of us who just do not see it many of us really do want to know. Thank you.

You would think a super-hot trend would have happened during WW2.

With all the fuel burning, the CO2 must have gone hog wild.

I think the scam artists missed that one.

a reply to: Bassago

Here It was a 100 degrees in some places. Thats the bad news. The good news is it didn't bother me. I'm finally climatized to the warmer weather and ready for the summer.

It's still amazing how this actually even LOOKS cyclical.

What's a pattern? The regular and repeated way in which something happens or is done...but that's not important right now.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah possibly so but we have been burning a ton of fossil fuel since the first coal plant fired up. I suppose we could have had an effect on global weather. But when we get schemer's like Al Gore and political agendas in the mix who knows what to believe anymore?

Weather seems the same to me. I would really like to see some facts on this and not just money grubbing.

originally posted by: xuenchen
You would think a super-hot trend would have happened during WW2.

With all the fuel burning, the CO2 must have gone hog wild.

I think the scam artists missed that one.

While its quite obvious and impossible to argue that military fuel consumption was through the roof, you've completely neglected fuel rationing for all civilians. This was as true for Europe as it was for the US. Gasoline, heating oil, coal(as well as things like butter, sugar, coffee) were all tightly controlled and the war effort was the primary destination for these goods. So while when looking at a skewed version of WW2, yes it looks as if fuel consumption was astronomical but it essentially averaged out when you remove or severly restrict consumption from the hands of the civilian populace.

originally posted by: jrflipjr
It's still amazing how this actually even LOOKS cyclical.

What's a pattern? The regular and repeated way in which something happens or is done...but that's not important right now.

Seems so, while not enough info to give a real idea of cycles it certainly looks that way.

Still it's possible our fossil fuel consumption has impacted the climate. I'm willing to look at data that supports this but have not seen any. Mostly seems to me that TPTB have just jumped the shark on a new method of leveraging taxes out of people.

It`s all just a huge tax scam.

I think Phage may be along in a bit to explain because I think I remember him addressing an issue similar to this not long ago.

If I remember correctly there were several adjustments to averages as they took into account the locations of temp sensing equipment. Such as if a post was located on the roof of a skyscraper had new asphalt, new building or new air conditioning outlets just as an examples. NOAA plots all these things, but they have little effect on older data from previous years. Little but not none.

Older sites could have been located in the inner city where most of those if not all have since been moved to airports that are cooler. Of course, those area temperatures have to be adjusted taking into account locations. Sometimes add sometimes subtract. As they get better data they may need to readjust them again. In this case they adjusted to say they hottest month was still in 1936.


Anyway that is my understanding of why those things are adjusted.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You may be correct or maybe with the glaring number adjustments to make for a better G.W. case even their own tribe threaten rebellion. Several reports of past number adjustments down to make the current temps look more extreme. But many will disregard that as an honest mistake even though it has been reported since this band wagon started. Disregard anything that does not make for a completed picture of what they want you to see.

Someone from the NOAA must be visiting ATS and found that we knew and were telling others. Same with a lot of other sites, maybe it is even on Facebook and YouTube. Once the cat is out of the bag it is either go with the flow or start taking the heat and loose your reputation. No big deal, it was only a minor purposely made mistake.

It doesn't change anything though, we have to quit trashing this earth. It can't keep up with our destructive ways.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am sure Phage will be along shortly to debate me, and then run away when he is shown up.

If that was his argument he is dead wrong. There were no adjustments that took place, they just "messed" up, and admitted it.

So yes 1936 was the hottest year in the US. Now that doesn't mean it was the hottest year globally, but that is a whole different story.

The main thing to take away from this is that even the most "respectable" organizations are willing to fudge the numbers to fit their agenda.

a reply to: Bassago

So what's the deal.

Politics. And not the simple kind, either. NOAA's gonna get their funding cut for being politically correct.

a reply to: Snarl

Politics. And not the simple kind, either. NOAA's gonna get their funding cut for being politically correct.

I think you mean politically incorrect. It's always politically incorrect to do anything that goes against TPTB agenda (in this case carbon taxes.) How dare NOAA do or say anything against the climate chaos bunch. Don't we all know Obama has consistently mocked anyone who speaks against climate change.

Still waiting for real facts here................chirp.. crickets.....

I can understand adjusting the July 2012 temp: New data, incorrect readings from certain sites, etc, etc.

What I don't understand is: why change the temp in 1936?

Was mistakes found in the historical data of 1936? What were those mistakes?

Again: I can understand why the changes of recent years could occur....but I'm failing to understand why changes to the historical data of 1936 also needed to be changed.

Can anyone explain that?

Time to put out the life rafts and call momma.

So the average temperature for the Whole of the continental USA in the month of July (summer time), has gone up just over .5 of 1 degree Celsius, in over 100 years.

I wish I was a scientist on 100K+ per year, and come up with this mind blowing information.

Thanks for the info OP.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Again: I can understand why the changes of recent years could occur....but I'm failing to understand why changes to the historical data of 1936 also needed to be changed.

Can anyone explain that?

I think that's pretty much the point. Fudging the numbers to achieve a specific political agenda is not a good thing. Maybe someone at NOAA felt bad about lying and fixed the data.

It has to do with a greater availability of data. Written records becoming digitized, accuracy of time and location of sensors. Stuff like that.

Best thing about science, it can change with newly discovered evidence.

a reply to: links234

100% wrong, but hey good try?

a reply to: Euphem

If that was his argument he is dead wrong. There were no adjustments that took place, they just "messed" up, and admitted it.

So yes 1936 was the hottest year in the US. Now that doesn't mean it was the hottest year globally, but that is a whole different story.

The main thing to take away from this is that even the most "respectable" organizations are willing to fudge the numbers to fit their agenda.

So which is it? Did they mess up as you said or did they fudge the numbers as you said?

You say you showed up Phage..hmm.... I must have missed that thread.

For that accomplishment congratulations here have some cookies.

Anyway the explanation I gave about the temp adjustments is my best understanding. I think what may have happened is they adjusted city temps down for 1936 to fall in line with the relocated stations away from cities then latter realised they overestimated.

Why the article didn't even mention that as a possibility seems a bit one sided. They did get their info from watts who quite frankly is known to fudge quite a bit.