Ever Wondered Why NCDC Doesn’t Publish Actual Measured Temperatures?

NCDC never publishes graphs of measured US temperatures. Here is why.

ScreenHunter_619 Jun. 22 11.34


Data is located here :


About Tony Heller

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

35 Responses to Ever Wondered Why NCDC Doesn’t Publish Actual Measured Temperatures?

  1. tom0mason says:

    Paid propagandists do not have to publish inconvenient facts

  2. SteveO says:

    How long until this gets accused of being “cherry-picking?” I don’t know how we got to the point where simulations, models, and reconstructions supplant actual data. No wonder warmists act more like religious followers than scientists.

  3. tklafehn says:

    Yeah, this tells us a real lot – nice “article” (and no, the graph doesn’t “say it all” – there is no context, no scientific discussion) – if anything, this looks like “cherrypicked” graph to try to convince those who want not to believe the scientists who really study this stuff

    • _Jim says:

      Planted stooge in the audience; no one can straight-faced come to that ‘conclusion’ walking in off the street …

      • SteveO says:

        I wish it was a planted stooge, but you can make bank that any analysis of data which does not lead to supporting the warmists’ view will be called cherry-picking to discredit the analysis. Easy prediction. Steven even posted an analysis a month or two ago, which included the entire temperature record, instead of just starting at 1978, and THAT was called cherry-picking. Call it observation bias, religious zealotry, bald-faced lies, whatever….the obvious effort is to shut down reasonable debate.

    • You obviously don’t understand how to access the original raw data.

      When you do, come back and have a sensible discussion about it.

    • nuk'n_fut says:

      USHCN Raw US Temp, 5 year mean, and data make for glaring context. Rainbow-colored crayons couldn’t make the context more context-y.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Yeah… see, Steven, the point that tklafehn is making, is that you can’t go looking at the data to determine whether we are warming. I mean, looking at the facts, at the measurements, at the raw data? Isn’t that cherry picking? Obviously, science consists of repeating what the high priests of science tell you to believe. Looking at the facts? How anti-science!!

      Rather clearly, (/sarc off

      tklafehn — if you are reading this, please, PLEASE!, ignore, just as an exercise, what the experts tell you. Just for a moment, consider that the experts are also the ones who tell you that prices are rising 2% per year, that unemployment is under 7%. You know, simply from those two obvious examples, that some experts will lie and say whatever they are paid to say. Consider the facts about global warming. Not the predictions of what will happen by 2100, but what has been measured. Is there a warm spot in the upper troposphere? No? Have the all time high temperature records been recent? No? Are we actually getting more hurricanes like were predicted? No? Are measured (NOT adjusted, but what the thermometers actually say!) temperatures going up? No?

      tklafehn, you may be a very bright person, but the fact is, you have been lied to by experts. You have been mislead for years and made to suffer needless anxiety. Don’t believe someone merely because they have an important title. Think, look at the data, decide what the truth is for yourself.

    • sunsettommy says:

      You are welcome to back up your assertion,with evidence you claim against what Steve posted.

  4. SteveO says:

    47 minutes.

  5. Andy DC says:

    A squiggly line signifying absolutely nothing, other than $ billions squandered to study a non existent “problem”.

  6. While this does not detract from your immediate point: As a real scientist (no, I’m not saying you’re not, I’m just giving drive-by readers my professional take), I would call that data essentially constant over the long term, at 53.25 +/- 0.50 degrees F, just by looking at it. I would bet that, if you calculated the R-square value for your trend line (which I assume is the best-fit line) and compared it to the R-square value for a constant 53.25 degrees, you would find not enough difference to matter (say, something like .70 vs. .67, or .75 vs. .72). This, just in case a reader wants to know what I would say, as a competent and unbiased physical scientist.

  7. The trouble with USHCN is that are still changing the temperature.


    While I haven’t posted it, even the data for Jan 1998 is different from the June 21 monthly to the June 22 monthly.

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    One thing that the warmist manipulators don’t seem to be able to manipulate is the records for highest and lowest temperatures. If we had been in a century or more of runaway hockey stick warming as the warmists maintain, almost certainly the record for the highest temperature worldwide would have been set very recently. Not 1913. And almost certainly the record for the coldest temp in the world would have been set *before* the record for the hottest day. Well, that’s not the case. The Chicken Littles can’t fudge this. In 1983 the record for the coldest day was set. The hottest day… 1913.

    Another thing you can look at is the records for, like, states. My understanding is that there is a skew toward the records for the coldest days tending to be set after the record for the hottest day. So that definitely does not sync with the warmist contentions, and adds to the sense that the “data,” as GISS, has been manipulated and is complete garbage. I know that anyone could just go through that information on state records and provide some stats on that, but I imagine someone has already done that, so if anyone knows of a link on that let me know. Thanks.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Yes, the highs and lows for the states are a good bit of evidence. The CAGW cultists can “adjust” (more accurately they can “lie about”) the temperature records for monthly and yearly averages and no one really notices. On the other hand, if they try to lie about the highest temperature ever recorded (or lowest) for a state, someone is going to check out the old record books and point out the lie. The CAGW nuts have painted themselves into a corder. They need to insist that the world is getting warmer — which means that the hottest temperature records should be falling like autumn leaves. But they are not — and the record high and low are data sets that they cannot lie about without getting caught.

  9. Consider the “SANDPOINT EXP STN” station. On June 21 the monthly average temperature for Jan 1998 was -1.33C. On June 22 2014 it was -0.89C for an increase in temperature of .44C.

    These are all the records where the temperature changed or the Error Flag changed.

    11 got warmer. 4 got colder. And even the non-Estimated data changes. OMG. How can you actually analyze the data if the past temperature changes every day.


  10. One thing the temperature tamperers cannot alter is the all-time max temperature records.

    So, for instance, we find that, during the 1930’s, 31 state record highs were set/tied, compared with just two since 2000.


    These are the official, authorised records according to NOAA.

  11. Tom Graney says:

    Can you point me to the location of the data used to make the chart? I’d like to republish it, but I don’t want to do so without being able to cite the exact source.

  12. Hugh K says:

    Sitting here thinking about all the government agencies now involved in some kind of investigation by the US House. Got to wondering if anyone can name just one US government agency that is not currently involved or recently involved in some type of scandalous behavior.
    And yet the media is still confused as to why a large portion of the US population want smaller government. I’m at a loss…..any explanations? Anyone?

  13. James says:

    I’m a scientist myself and work with computer models all the time. The alarmists would be stunned at how the real world never works as well as computer models. Simple reason for this: too many variables. One cannot account for all the variables and climate has more than most anything. Anyone that puts computer model data before actual real data is nothing more than a fool for a computer model will deliver whatever it is programmed to deliver whereas actual data is delivered without human intervention. Global warming alarmism, as well as some other items, is nothing more than the masses being manipulated into believing something totally untrue and by politicians. Why politicians? Power, control and more tax money to “save the planet” they can use to buy more power and control.

    • Jason Calley says:


    • _Jim says:

      Or, alternatively, try circuit (electronic circuit) modeling; there is a reason why a “Monte Carlo” simulation variation function is available, it is a lot like doing “multiple climate model runs”, performed intentionally though, with different random (within set limits) component parameter values to give an engineer some idea of ‘what’ to expect in a real-world scenario of components of varying value BUT within defined tolerances.

      As analog simulators have gotten better, with the results getting closer to what a ‘hardware’ breadboard exhibits in the ‘real-world’. Simulation of EM waves can be a horse of a different color, however, requiring the maximum in terms of compute horsepower and other resources such as memory depending the size and complexity of the object(s) being simulated (or excited) by EM energy, and the desired resolution or accuracy.

      Modeling the earth, including an interactive biosystem and including a solar system (along with solar wind et al) should really be beyond any one individual’s comprehension at this point …


  14. old timer says:

    THE problem is that teachers have been teaching AGW as fact for two generations. The first generation, including many who now work in various levels of gov’t, feed the AGW vortex with gov’t research funds furthering climate scientology, and make very dangerous policy recommendations to politicians. Why ignore history, which indicates prosperity and culture blossoms during warming and collapse occurs during cooling?

  15. Hoser says:

    It’s a relief the raw data still exist, and haven’t been lost on a recycled hard drive according to standard federal agency policy.

Leave a Reply

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