US Temperature Data Tampering – Worse Than It Seems

Most people assume that temperature graphs from NOAA and NASA are generated by averaging thermometer data and honestly reporting their findings. This belief is based on a blind belief in authority, rather than evidence.

NOAA publishes two US temperature data sets – raw and final. In the graph below, the raw (measured) temperature data is shown in blue, the reported (final) data is shown in red, and satellite temperatures of the troposphere over the United States since 1979 are shown in green.

Both the raw and the final data sets show too much warming, likely due to Urban Heat Island effects in the raw data, plus massive data tampering in the final data.

The comparison versus satellite data shows that NOAA should be adjusting past temperatures upwards, and more recent temperatures downwards. But they do the exact opposite. They massively cool the past, and increase recent temperatures. The adjustments total more than two degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

The adjustments being made almost perfectly match the increase in atmospheric CO2. This is an indication of ultimate junk science. They are altering the data precisely to match their theory.

Science doesn’t get any worse than this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to US Temperature Data Tampering – Worse Than It Seems

  1. GW Smith says:

    Great one, Tony! But what does the left say when presented with this information?

    • R Shearer says:

      It’s settled, 97%, blah, blah.

    • -B- says:

      People parrot what they are told. And that’s what the leftists do.

      It doesn’t matter what the subject is when you have a view, facts, or logic that was not presented by the government schools or mainstream media the reaction of most people is to tell you what teacher told them as if you missed class that day. For the last many decades intelligence has been measured by repeating what the teacher said. Repeating what was written in the text book. So this is what people do and they consider themselves smart. They will use ridicule on anyone who doesn’t go along with what the teacher said. There’s no thinking involved.

      It takes actual knowledge and thinking skills to even be able to comprehend what Tony’s work means or even to understand what the climate authorities are doing. Most people will not expend the cognitive effort required to understand so they will just repeat what they were told by authority.

      The powers that be know this. They will continue to get the majority to support them out of nothing more than shear laziness. Facts don’t matter.

      • Andy DC says:

        Then you have the elitist snobs in the media and academia who think they are empowered to tell the rest of us how and what to think and use condescending ridicule as their primary debating tool. Are you listening, Michael Mann?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Some leftists who think they’re real clever use the 2002 time of observation bias excuse.

      I have asked them why the adjustments continue.

      Their reply? Crickets.

  2. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Great summary, Tony.

    In a future installment, maybe you can address the obvious reply that a naïve GW believer might come back with: “Oh, but the climate scientists must have good technical reasons to make these adjustments, otherwise they wouldn’t even release the raw data and open themselves up to this kind of criticism.”

    The human mind fills gaps in knowledge with hypotheses tending to justify what it already believes. The task IMHO is to fill those gaps (“they must have good reasons”), thus crowding out the rationalizations.

    Leave them with no escape except to realize that AGW is BS.

    • -B- says:

      I usually drive the point that they aren’t believing in science but believing in the judgment of authority. I don’t bother with arguments if they are good reasons or bad reasons, only that we are being shown the product of analysis and not measurements and that analysis is done by human beings driving home they have put faith in human beings and not measurement driven science. I don’t know if it works but nobody has come up with a rebuttal. They just try to move to tangent or change the subject.

  3. Andy DC says:

    Toto definitely has his work cut out for him, to keep pulling the curtain back to expose this whole stinking mess. I hope he doesn’t collapse from exhaustion, having to keep doing it so many times.

  4. arn says:

    There is a new science:
    Hockey Stick-
    formerly known as climate science.

    A pretty simple sience:
    Those who can turn every flat line into a hockey stick by ignoring data
    are called experts.
    The only other skill one needs is to delay
    the predicted ultimate apocalypse year after year after year
    (and the more delays,the bigger the predicted catastrophy)

    And nowadays there is a fight going on between:
    climate deniers and hockey stick delayers.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    So why are we STILL facing a deafening silence from those in authority who’re supposed to hold official bodies accountable? Where’s the equivalent of a financial regulator who demands verification of climate data – on the back of which policies costing $billions are being rolled out? This should be a slam-dunk case for RICO or similar yet all we hear (from just about every western government) is….tumbleweed. Trump will not be lightly forgiven if he rows back on his climate promises.

  6. GoFigure says:

    Just to clarify: “Raw minus RSS” uses the surface raw temperature, same as used in the other comparison, right? (There is no “raw” RSS data that I know of)

  7. gregole says:

    This so-called science, climate science that is sets out to discover absolutely nothing. It consists entirely of conjecture and data-gathering and data-manipulation in support of said conjecture. There is no actual discovery going on; no forecasting accuracy. Shoddy doesn’t begin to describe it. But it heads in the right direction.

  8. Frank Lansner says:

    Hi Tony, just to be sure how to use the datasets:

    You write that RSS is lower 48 states, is this also the case for the NOAA data?

    Thank you for fantastic work. I have an article using raw original data for temperature world wide, but we have trouble getting it published.. surprise. Let me know if you want to see it.

    K.R. Frank Lansner

  9. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thanks, Tony.

    Tomorrow (Sat 22 Apr 2017), President Trump will experience the treacherous methods of his opponents in a March for Science in Washington, DC.

    A historical warning on intrinsic danger of internal government conflicts:

  10. ChristianValerian says:

    Where did you get the raw data temperatures?

  11. jack b :-) says:

    An analogy here to a couple of very different businesses in my career in the 1980s & ’90s.
    #1 – I broke out in the oil business running seismic, soup to nuts, jugging to observing and every job in between, circa 1980. I also spent time in my company’s main midland, tx office observing those (mainly $10/hr) college kids, whose job was to ‘process’ the data. They essentially took the raw tape data and edited it – kicking out high and low ‘anomalies’ – THEN sending it a qualified geophysicist at the funding oil company (contract lines) or to our storage library (spec lines), which is a large pool of data for sale to whoever would pay for it, line by line.
    It was amazing to me how many times that the seismically-identified drilling targets were found directly on the funding company’s leased acreage.
    However, at the better oil companies i worked at over the years, those (talented) geologists and geophysicists would ALWAYS buy only the raw, unprocessed (unedited) data. We would make our own decisions, and using our own tools to yield high 90% + well completions. Normally before we leased anything at all.
    The massaged data, usually processed by well-meaning but very, very inexperienced college kids ALWAYS yielded much poorer results.
    #2 – While working at a very large major, in the oil bust of the late 90s, i ran non-core business for the company, which included polygraphs. I was almost always asked a simple question by the polygraph operator BEFORE the test(s) even began. The question: ‘Do you have anyone in particular that you’re suspecting?’ Hmmm…

    *** There are other analogies i could present here, but the message is clear. Folks pretty much bow to their funding masters in order to pad their pockets for current, and more importantly – FUTURE – business.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.