NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 3)

NOAA claims that their adjustments are small, peer reviewed and well documented. A total of about 0.5F, and then they go flat after 1990.

GHCN Global Gridded Data

This is bad enough, but the actual adjustments (below) are much larger than what they document – about three times larger. Note too the oddity with 2012. They had to adjust 2012 raw data down, because their 2012 “raw” data was adjusted upwards by a huge amount.

ScreenHunter_393 Jan. 12 07.16

Raw :
Final :

Even worse is that the adjustments now increase exponentially after 1990, whereas their documentation shows that they go flat after 1990.

The graph below superimposes the documented “peer reviewed” adjustments on the actual adjustments which NOAA is publishing. As you can see, they bear little resemblance.

ScreenHunter_393 Jan. 12 07.35

NOAA hides behind peer review, when in fact they aren’t even using the adjustments which they had reviewed. The published NOAA US temperatures bear no resemblance to reality. Bottom line is that NOAA is either completely incompetent or committing fraud – or both.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 3)

  1. Kaboom says:

    Looks unsustainable to me. Someone call Greenpeace.

  2. Andy DC says:

    I am sure they are knowingly committing fraud. You would think with increasing urbanization the adjustments should be down, not up. Since skeptics are excluded from the process, peer review is simply cross pollination among like minded true believers, who feel they need to frighten the public into emptying their wallets.

  3. kirkmyers says:

    There are jobs, reputations and huge sums of research money at stake. The climate activists — er, “scientists” — have to keep the global warming scare alive at all costs, even if it means manipulating data and lying to the public.

    Also, the heads of the various climate agencies (i.e. NOAA NCDC, NASA GISS, NSIDC, etc.) know they must give the right answers to their political masters, or they’re out of a job. Job security and a paycheck is their No. 1 priority; the science be damned.

  4. In a very specialised research field ‘peer reviewed’ may mean ‘checked by my associates’.

  5. Ken Gregory says:

    I tried unsuccessfully to open the Raw and Final files using the links you provided.
    I copied the ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz and the ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz files to my local drive. They are both 1 KB size.

    Using 7-Zip 9.20, extracting the ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz file creates a folder ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar, which contains a file ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar. This file is 10 KB size. I can’t open this file. Extracting this (using Winrar or 7-Zip) creates a folder ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i, which contains a folder ushcn.v2.5.0.20130112.MM, which contains no files.
    I read the Readme.txt file at
    which didn’t help.
    Obviously I am doing something wrong. How can I get this data?

  6. Ken Gregory says:

    Nope, the ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz and ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz files are both 1 KB.
    Here is a screen shot of the ftp page from the link you provided

    There are three files of ushcn.tavg.latest. data. The ushcn.tavg.latest.tob.tar.gz file is 4433 KB.
    I thought the 1 KB files where global average data. I think the correct files have gone AWL.

  7. Ken Gregory says:

    FYI, I put your 3 part “NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands” on my website at
    at Climate Science >> Temperature istory

  8. fritz chess says:

    How do all you knuckleheads explain the receding glaciers which I have been watching with my own eyes

Leave a Reply

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