More Smoking Guns Of Fraud At NOAA

The US has by far the best temperature record of any large area on Earth. We have an excellent network of 1200+ USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) stations with data going back to 1895 and earlier. The raw USHCN temperature record shows that there has been a slight cooling since 1920. USHCN is a subset of GHCND (Global Historical Climatology Network Daily.)

Cooling doesn’t suit the needs of NOAA and NASA, so they cherry picked a small subset of GHCND stations which show a large amount of warming since 1920, for use in the global GSN temperature record.

They claim that they adjust global temperatures to reduce overall global warming, but much of the fraud in the global temperature record is committed in their global station selection and homogenization, which has moved 15 degrees closer to the equator since the 1930’s.

This is the all of the US stations NOAA GHCND had available in 1920.

This is the tiny subset used by NOAA GSN GHCND in 1920.

The cherry picking of US GSN GHCND stations is a farcical tiny subset of what is available.

The average latitude of the US GSN GHCND stations has moved more than 1.5 degrees to the south.

The roots of this fraud goes back to at least 1999, when NASA’s James Hansen complained that the excellent US temperature record didn’t match the farcical global temperature record.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

So NASA and NOAA took a two-pronged approach to US temperature fraud.  For the global temperature record, they cherry picked a tiny, non-representative set of US GHCND stations. For the USHCN temperature record, they massively tamper with the data to produce fake warming.

Their data tampering precisely matches their CO2 warming theory. Science at its absolute worst.

The GHCN/USHCN methodology is all peer-reviewed, which shows how corrupt and incompetent the climate science community is.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to More Smoking Guns Of Fraud At NOAA

  1. gator69 says:

    I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.
    -Joseph Stalin

  2. Tony, you’ve convinced many like me that the data has been tampered with, however that means that except for the satellite era, we have no record set which for example, I can honestly put on my blog and say “this is a good representation of what we believe global temps have done”.

    And the particular example I was looking at was related to 1970s warming and some El Nino years.

    So, is there any way you could produce something to say what is your best guess of what has been going on. (email me if you’d like to discuss)

  3. Stephen Jones says:

    There are scientific proofs of man made global warming:

    • tonyheller says:

      Read my blog

    • Gail Combs says:

      There are scientific spoofs used to make people THINK there is man made global warming

      There FIX IT.

    • Steve Case says:

      I read through your link, thanks for posting, and I found this quote:

      “At the other end of the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect, contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO2.”

      Not to knock your link, but if you do a news search on methane it won’t take very much digging before you run across the claim that methane is many times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

      It annoys me greatly that this claim of usually 86 times more powerful than CO2 is virtually ignored allowing the proponents of this obvious bullshit to get away with it.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Steve, his Methane claim is absurd since it barely absorbs any IR in the first place,because of its placement in the very low energy part of the IR window and the scarcity of the molecule.

        Here is the comment Willis made showing how feeble CH4 really is,keep in mind, that it is based on a DOUBLING of the CH4 concentration, in the atmosphere:

        “Dr. Tom, a most interesting post. I never considered that.

        Of course, being a man who checks everyone, I went to MODTRAN to check your assertions. I found the following increases in longwave absorption if we double the methane concentration. Here’s how absorption increases when you double the methane.

        Clear Sky Tropics +0.75 W/m2 from doubling of methane
        Clear Sky US Standard Atmosphere +0.69 W/m2
        Clear Sky Subarctic Winter +0.34 W/m2

        Note that these are reduced somewhat if there are clouds. On a global average, then, it seems that a doubling of methane would lead to an increase in absorption of somewhere around half a W/m2 … color me totally unimpressed.

        So your claim is upheld by MODTRAN, my congratulations … always more for me to learn, thanks for schooling me on methane.”

        The very next comment, is a comment on the FULL spectral analysis of CO2,CH4 and H2O,go look at the links there.

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Another thoughtful comment by Willis:

          “If increasing methane by 100% produces the same results as increasing CO2 by ~ 16%, I’d call it a weak GHG …

          Next, while it is true that at the top of the troposphere there is little water vapor, there is also little gas of any kind. As you most condescendingly say, I’m glad to see that YOU know how to use Modtran. And if you “play around” with it a bit more, in your unpleasant terminology, you will find that indeed, as you say the H20 levels drop much faster with altitude than do the CH4 levels. Most of the water vapor is near the ground.

          But what you obviously didn’t stick around to notice were the absolute levels. Lets take clear-sky tropics as the example. At ground level, the concentration of atmospheric water vapor is about 15,500 times that of methane.

          But even at 17 km elevation, the approximate height of the tropopause, there is still almost twice as much water vapor as methane. So your claim above is simply incorrect. Water vapor is indeed pretty trivial at the tropopause … but methane is even more trivial.”

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Oh mu gosh!

      Stephen,that is a horrible post for the bucket load of information he left out. He hopes that warmists like you remain profoundly ignorant of the topic.

      He doesn’t talk about Logarithmic curve of CO2 warm forcing effect,which is tiny at the 400 ppm level.

      He doesn’t talk about how little it has warmed since 1998.

      Just one example why his tripe is misleading and dishonest:

      He never address the several profound IPCC prediction/projection failures at all. Here is one of them:

      1990 IPCC report,

      “Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
      likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century.”

      A .30C per decade warming trend,and 1C from 1990 to 2025. Satellite show less than half that rate from 1979.

      2001 IPCC report,

      “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ”

      A .30C per decade warming trend. Satellite show negligible warming since 1998,around .1C total,which is about .05C per decade average.

      Mr. Dunning is another warmist who doesn’t provide an honest essay of the topic.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Also, Stephen Jones doesn’t attempt to discuss or disprove Tony’s evidence of NOAA fraud.

        He’s like people who react to an article showing evidence of documented fraud in medical research papers by responding that “there are scientific proofs” showing fat is bad for you and linking to a webpage that says fat is bad for you.

        He’s a shining light of progressive governmental science.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Absolutely ZERO scientific proof in you link.

      Baseless, unsubstantiated, AGW hack opinion.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Let me guess, SJ, you are a failed Arts student, ZERO science

      NON-thinking and ABSOLUTELY GULLIBLE to any AGW propaganda pap.

  4. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    It is strange to see, that the more important the global temperature becomes, the less stations are used. Could not just a bit of all the money used be directed to keep the stations alive?

    • neal s says:

      More real data might make it harder to come up with enough fake data to move the temperature record the way those who control it would like. Real data is a real threat to the imagined temperature record.

  5. Do you know whether the average elevation of the stations changes as they moved to lower lattitudes?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.