NASA/NOAA Have Little Or No Long-Term Temperature Data For The UK

This is a list of all of the NASA/GHCN stations within 255 km of Waddington, England, that have raw temperature data. They have only two stations with recent data, and none with continuous temperature records going back to the 1930’s.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Africa is even worse, where they have very few stations with any kind of raw temperature data.

The global temperature record is a complete farce, put together by political criminals – not scientists. The fact that “four independent government agencies” now have essentially the same temperature graph, shows what a complete fraud these people are.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to NASA/NOAA Have Little Or No Long-Term Temperature Data For The UK

  1. RAH says:

    Hell, I can’t really blame them for their lack of coverage in some places in Africa. It would take a battalion with all kinds of support to maintain sites in some of those countries. But there are still plenty of countries stable enough in where they could put stations that don’t even have a single one. But of course we can blame them for their trying to claim that their surface temperature data is a true indication of global surface temps and their dishonest selection of stations to make the “data” support what their bosses desire it to.

    Here is the Political Map of Africa according to the CIA Factbook

    • Harrison Bergeron says:

      This wouldn’t be a problem at all if decolonization had never happened. The civilization brought to Africa naturally included meteorological equipment and monitoring, but when we were forced to leave (and genocided if we didn’t) we took the INTEREST in monitoring the weather with us.

      A modern Africa still colonized would have had unbroken temperature data from at least 1900 to now.

    • Winnipegboy says:

      I read one story about a year ago about a private company using airplane takeoffs around the world to build a temperature database. That would cover the globe without armies or new equipment. But i can’t find any hint of it since.
      Mann probably had him whacked.
      Anyone on here have a link or information?

  2. TinyCO2 says:

    Warrington is an odd station to include. It was a US airbase that existed before the dates used but is now an industrial estate so there is no modern site to assess, let alone modern measurements to be taken and compared. It has quite different weather to places north, south and east of it.

  3. CheshireRed says:

    Fraud is the correct word. We all saw how the UK government fixed the Climategate ‘inquiries’. (Nothing to see here, move along.) They didn’t even interview Phil Jones, the head of Cru at East Anglia uni’, despite his emails being at the centre of the allegations! It’s clear why: if they had they’d have had no choice but to ditch the historical dataset which in turn would’ve left the entire AGW industry with no data upon which their fraud, er sorry, ‘settled science’ theory, could be justified. Outcome: end of the entire £multi-billion AGW industry, and they weren’t having that.

    It really IS just one massive global racket.

  4. When I started going on about the pause, I knew that given a random set of meteorological stations, you could cherry pick stations to create a warming trend by constantly removing those that didn’t suit the kind of graph you wished to create.

    However, as time went by, and the number of stations still left in your cherry picked set grew smaller and smaller (and more and more like each other as they all had to show the same warming) … sooner or later it would become impossible to keep the fiction of an ever warming signal going by cherry picking the stations you used.

    … and here comes the fun bit!!!

    The more you made having no warming a huge issue – the more they would cherry pick the stations to weed out the ones without massive warming – and the sooner they would create a very homogenised dataset with very little variation from which they could remove any of the cooling ones to fabricate warming.

    If my logic is difficult to follow … think of it this way. You want to prove that everyone in a town is walking south. There are 10,000 people, and at your first measurement – you ignore from your sample everyone walking North. Assume this leaves 5000. At each successive sample, you discard as “obviously bogus data” any not going south. If this is half of each sample, then after 8 measurements you only have 40 people.

    However …. because all these people have been sharing precisely the same behaviour, it is very likely that many of them are in groups or even one large group. So although you might expect to be able to pick 20, 10, 5,2,1 the chances are that whole groups are related in some way, so that they will drop out much faster than expected.

    A similar argument can be used when picking from a large number of possible ways to “process the data”. By pure chance many will be able to manufacture warming … but those that do distort the data in the same way will tend to be related in some way. So eventually, whilst you still have a large number of possible ways to process the data … you’ll find they all tend to come to the same result (which by pure chance will sooner or later be cooling).

    • Stephen Richards says:

      That I like Mike!

    • §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Great explanation.

        Since NOAA refuses to explain the why of the ‘corrections’ and those corrections continually change, we are looking at propaganda not science.

        Heck from what I can gather the changes are made by some idiot computer program and not even a person who looks at the datum and the facts surrounding the gathering of that datum and makes an intelligent and scientific decision on the error and precision! (Per Zeke Hausfeathers)

  5. richard says:

    That shows quite a few in Algeria, i very much doubt that. I did some work in Algeria 18 years ago, it was a dangerous place and a shambles.

  6. richard says:

    Ive posted this before but illustrates the problem.

    WMO ” Because the data with respect to in-situ surface
    air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear
    regional assessment for Africa could not
    be based on any of the three standard global
    surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC,
    NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, the
    combination of the Global Historical Climatology
    Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
    System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
    Research Laboratory was used to estimate
    surface air temperature patterns”

    “In order to assess the state of the climate
    in any region, regular distributed and longterm
    observations are needed within that
    region. Unfortunately, WMO Regional
    Baseline Climatological Network (RBCN)
    stations and GCOS Global Surface Network
    (GSN) stations across the African continent
    often lack resources to report on monthly
    or on annual (see Figure 4) time scales”

    The WMO flag up that Africa needs 9000 temps stations, this gives the scale of the problem- Africa is bigger than the land masses of the US, China, India, Mexico, Peru, France, Spain, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Norway, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Greece put together.

  7. richard verney says:

    There is so little coverage in the Southern Hemisphere that it is farcical to try and reconstruct either a Southern Hemisphere or a Global data set.

    We only have reasonable coverage with respect to the Northern Hemisphere. If this was a genuine science, the short comings of the SH and the Global data sets would be readily acknowledged. We should only be working with the Northern hemisphere data.

    Since science is essentially all about numbers, the first step would be to get quality data, not to use hopelessly inadequate data and then seek to adjust it/homogenize it in the hope of getting something better. you cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

    The starting point would be to audit all stations (like the surface station projections0 and then select only the most pristine stations, ie., those that have no issue with screens, station moves, no encroachment of urbanisation or changes in nearby land use, those with the best practice and procedure for observation and record keeping/quality control, those where the use and type of equipment is known at all times, and stations that have a continuous uninterupted record etc.

    One would only work with the cream. It does not matter that one may be left with just a few hundred stations. This might lead to spatial issues, but that is not much of a problem where the theory being tested is based upon CO2 being a well mixed gas. More important is that one has a reasonable number of stations covering a range of latitudes, some coastal,, some mountainous, and the majority simply rural.

    One does not need to compile a Hemisphere wide data set. One can simply examine each station and keep each individual station separate. One could retrofit each of the selected stations with the same equipment as used in the 1930s/1940s and take observations using the same TOB as was used at that station in the 1930s/1940s.

    In this manner there would be no need to make any adjustments at all. Just use raw data, and compare raw data with raw data.

    If we were to retrofit say 100 or so good stations with the equipment that those stations used in the 1930s/1940s, one would quickly know what changes had really taken place since then.

    Further, I do not see how one can compile a time series when each year the stations that make up that series change. To compile a meaningful time series, it is necessary to keep the stations used exactly the same throughout the entirety of the time.

    The coming and going of stations is one the biggest problems in the land based thermometer data sets, and it invalidates the law of big numbers. The errors are immense because of the adding in and dropping out of stations and the general compositional change in the mix of stations (the ratio of urban, airport, rural, high latitude etc.)

    Unfortunately B€ST was a lost opportunity. It should have gone right the way back to the drawing board.

  8. RAH says:

    Now a list of African countries with no stations in their interior as per the CIA Fact Book Africa Political map:
    Libya – 1,759,540 sq km
    Mauritania – 1,030,700 sq km
    Mali – 1,240,192 sq km
    Guinea – 245,857 sq km
    Sierra Leone – 71,740 sq km
    Liberia – 111,369 sq km
    Ghana – 238,533 sq km
    Togo – 56,785 sq km
    Niger – 1,267,000 sq km
    Chad – 1,284,000 sq km
    Sudan – 1,861,484 sq km
    South Sudan – 644,329 sq km
    Uganda – 241,038 sq km
    Kenya – 580,367 sq km
    Somalia – 637,657 sq km
    Eritrea – 117,600 sq km
    Rwanda – 26,338 sq km
    Burundi – 25,680 sq km
    Tanzania – 947,300 sq km
    Dem. Rep. of the Congo 2,344,858 sq km
    Angola – 1,246,700 sq km
    Zambia – 752,618 sq km
    Malawi – 118,484 sq km
    Namibia – 824,292 sq km
    Botswana – 581,730 sq km
    Swaziland – 17,364 sq km
    Lesotho – 30,355 sq km
    Total are of African countries with no
    reporting station in their interiors——— 15,202,426

    • richard says:


      “3.1. Synoptic network

      The synoptic network meets the requirements of forecasting, nowcasting, NWP and international exchange for real time observations taken at intervals between 1 and 3 hours. The observed elements include weather, cloud, temperature, humidity, wind, visibility, pressure etc. contained in the SYNOP message (see 4.1). Most synoptic stations also report hourly rain in the SREW message (see 4.2) as well as observations which meet more general climate requirements in the HCM and NCM messages (see 4.4 and 4.5). The current synoptic network has an average station spacing of less than 50 km; it is made up of the following sub-networks:”

  9. Stephen Richards says:

    Kew used to be one of the favoured UKMO sites. Being east of London it caught the heat from the city when the winter was at its coldest and when summer was at its warmest

  10. SxyxS says:

    So,seems that 75-80% of african territory has no stations at all
    but they are cocksure that they can prove global warming
    and on the other side satellites are covering the entire planet and shoving no warming for 2 decades but they don’t care.

    This never was about climate and never will.

    These people have no ethics,no logic no pride but shameless freeloaders with huge pockets for co2 tax moneys and a bag of lies you get in return.

  11. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Davis Weatherlink has a lot more stations in Africa than is used by NOAA. Looks like more than 300, but many are near the Mediterranean Sea.

    They have 9 stations in Tanzania where NOAA has none.

    A map of the stations is available at

    • Douglas Hoyt says:

      Just an additional note. If you were to take the Tanzanian measurements and find the difference in temperatures, separated by as many years as possible, then this could be compared to the difference in GISS anomalies for the same years. If they don’t agree, it is likely something is wrong with GISS, since there are nine stations to none in the comparison.

      Just a suggestion for quality control.

  12. jb says:

    U would think that the uk being so prosperous and avanced would have at least local records from the mid 1700s to the mid 1950s that some venerated universities would have agglomerated

  13. Patrick healy says:

    If my fading memory is correct, I seem to recall at about the time of climategate1, the UK met office telling us that they could not divulge lots of weather data because it was “copyrighted” Then I seem to recall they were intending to use some of the taxpayer’s millions to compile a brand new fit for purpose world temperature chart, or some such.
    What became of that project I wonder?
    Slightly off topic, but related, I see the Pontifical “science” department after consulting that seer population bomb Paul Elrich and his pals, tell us that global warming is the biggest threat to a “sustainable” future world of 1 billion people. And there was I as a Catholic believing every human being was important. So who on here will volunteer to be culled?

  14. Both of the current sites, Leeming and Waddington, are RAF stations as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.