NOAA Data Tampering – Always Worse Than It Seems

I changed my environment to use the identical set of 1,218 stations for GHCN HCN daily data, as are used for the  USHCN monthly data.

We are of course familiar with the hockey stick of data tampering being done between raw and final USHCN monthly data.

ScreenHunter_2426 Aug. 31 15.10

 But it is worse than it seems. Before they even to get to “raw monthly” data, they have already cooled the past by 0.1ºF relative to their raw daily data.

ScreenHunter_2427 Aug. 31 15.11

There seems to be no limit to the amount of cheating being done with the temperature record.

About Tony Heller

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

9 Responses to NOAA Data Tampering – Always Worse Than It Seems

  1. markstoval says:

    “There seems to be no limit to the amount of cheating being done with the temperature record.” ~S.G.

    There is no limit. Even when caught red handed they just keep on cheating. The common man does not expect a “scientist” to cheat on the data. Why should a scientist cheat? Those guys in a white coat always tell the truth!

    The fact of the matter is that the magic molecule CO2 and its supposed dangers to life on this planet is just a means to get to the end they desire. Full control. They want to control how people live and the want to stop progress dead in its tracks. Let them eat cake! … I mean … Let them burn wood!

    • ron says:

      Yes, burning wood is exactly what the Germans are doing when their wind and solar plants fail, which is most of the time. They have used up their supply of wood , so they are importing it from southern U S Forest.

  2. mjc says:

    In the postmodernist mindset, there is no such thing as an absolute. So, therefore, observations are not ‘fixed in time and space’ nor are they representative of actual conditions at the time of observation, but rather are just numbers to be ‘adjusted’. These adjustments are made by some ‘body’ that has decided they know better what actually went on, when the observations were made than those who made them. So, accordingly, there is nothing wrong with making continuous, ever changing adjustments to the past records. In fact, it’s a ‘best practice’ and ‘NEEDS’ to be done to ‘correct’ all the problems.

  3. It is odd that all these “adjustments” occur in the same direction. If these were real adjustments based on correcting errors or missing data, there would be a nearly equal amount of upward and downward adjustments.

  4. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Make the data fit the result that you want is what they do — the new science!

  5. This is a legitimate concern of course, but presenting numbers that match your suspicions doesn’t equal QED. You have to look at the methods used to make raw numbers…and then the final numbers…and how both methods have changed and why…and what they claim to be adjusting for. If they adjust for something that doesn’t need adjusting…and/of if their adjustment methods don’t square with what they claim to be the reason for the adjustment…AND you have these graphs showing that their changes result almost exclusively in warmer numbers…then you have an extremely compelling case. But numbers themselves don’t prove anything.

    They try to adjust for changes in instrumentation, changes in station location, and urban heat island effects among other things in hopes of eliminating sources of bias, but those speak to history vs. current, not raw vs. final.

    Anyway, I on the other hand can’t present a compelling logical and evidence-based case demonstrating they’re NOT doing what you think they’re doing; however, there are two facts that work against the conspiracy theory.

    1) If they were intentionally manipulating the numbers to falsely demonstrate warming, they wouldn’t leave all the before and after evidence around for public consumption. You never know. Someone might take those data and compare the two in an attempt to expose those manipulations.

    2) If in fact they manipulate data in an attempt to manufacture global warming when there is none…these adjustments don’t lead to that conclusion. Whether or not they intentionally warm the data, they only demonstrate that the U.S. is warming, which does not imply that the globe is warming. Their ‘fraud’ would be in vain no matter how extreme or successful it was.

  6. Andy DC says:

    Big cold requires big “adjustments” to keep the scam alive.

Leave a Reply

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