Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth

In 1975, NCAR generated this graph of global cooling. Temperatures plummeted from 1945 to at least 1970.

Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth

Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

 

Note that 1970 used to be colder than 1900.

In 2011, Richard Muller published this graph, showing that it never happened.

Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth

Below is an overlay at the same scale. The cooling after 1950 has disappeared. Winston Smith would be proud!

Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth

 

Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Rewriting The Past At The Ministry Of Truth - What's Your Take On The Story?

  1. Shub says:

    Their (NCAR) graph is in F. How does it look converted to C?

  2. nofreewind says:

    Steve, how do you come up with that?
    The Cooling World show temps down about .6F while BEST shows temps from 1940-1970 down about .3C.(maybe a little less) Isn’t that in the same ballpark?

    • Eric Barnes says:

      .3C? Maybe you should look again. Eyeball halfway between 0 and .5, and compare that to the top of the curve. It might be .2C.

    • Looks to me like the Best black line shows at most 0.2C and it ended by 1955. The NCAR graph shows almost twice that much and was terminated before it bottomed.

    • Paul H says:

      More to the point NCAR had 1970 down to the level of 1900. The increase since 1970 would look much more like a part of a long term trend from that sort of base.

  3. Gordon Andelin says:

    Steven…I have a warmist who wants a link to the NCAR chart. Thanks in advance.

  4. Gator says:

    I’m sure astronauts are thankful that rocket scientists plan and execute the work on space projects, instead of ‘climate experts’. It means the difference between landing on the Moon, or on the Sun.

  5. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steven, nice find. However, I suspect that the difference is from the ocean. The NCAR data presumably includes the ocean. The BEST data does not. The ocean data likely contains the dubious “bucket adjustment” in 1945, which gave it the big dip around 1945.

    w.

  6. Sparks says:

    Either way, it shows that these graphs from years of climate records are unreliable, might as well train a monkey to throw darts at a dartboard to come up with a temperature anomaly and use it.
    Adjusting data to suit, for whatever reason is still adjusting data.

  7. Faux Science Slayer says:

    Just as ‘plausible deniability’ in politics and ‘creative bankruptde rigorcy’ in investing, lies and distortions are de rigor in reality. Climate science is the ‘credit default swap’ of science supporting a sub-prime hypothesis. But there are many other corrupted branches of science related to this same scam including green energy and peak oil. The total paradigm of lies is supported by Faux History. Read the interesting truth on reality at http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com and share with others.

  8. Orson says:

    Willis writes: “However, I suspect that the difference is from the ocean. The NCAR data presumably includes the ocean. The BEST data does not. The ocean data likely contains the dubious “bucket adjustment” in 1945, which gave it the big dip around 1945.”

    I doubt that this is correct because COMBINING land and SST simply wasn’t done in this era, 1970, nor during the 1960s and 70s. The kind of homogenizing Willis knows, in order to score points, didn’t come into vogue until AFTER the IPCC came into existence in 1988.

  9. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Thanks, Orson, you may be right that the old NCAR data is land only, I hadn’t thought of that.

    All the best,

    w.

    • Benjamin Franz says:

      I researched it last year when that old Newsweek article came up. The best match data is NCDC northern hemisphere land only 5 year averages (and the chart is some reporter’s handmade chart to boot).

      As usual, Steven is comparing apples to oranges (northern hemisphere land 5 year averages vs all land 30 year averages).

  10. Lars P. says:

    I saw it in RUTI – it uses only unadjusted rural data from GHCN could be interesting to have a look
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ruti-global-land-temperatures-1880-2010-part-1-244.php

  11. John T says:

    I give. Apparently we knew how to measure temperatures from the 1880s to the 1950s, but apparently that technology has now been lost to us. Everything agrees until that point, which would be somewhat unexpected if one were comparing apples to oranges the whole time (though not impossible).

  12. JasonR says:

    Temperature can change several degrees over the period of a few hours. So why worry about the change of a centigrade over a century?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>