Another Smoking Gun Of NOAA Fraud

Fort Valley, Arizona had daily temperatures recorded every day during summer 1990. NOAA declared the data to be missing, and bumped the temperature up by 0.64C (1.16F)

The USHCN adjusted monthly data shows summer 1990 as missing 
and 27.06C
USH0002316011990 623EX 620EX 1168EX 1613EX 2016EX 2872EX 2711EX 2536EX 2312 1916 1284a 542a

THE USHCN Raw monthly data shows it present and 26.42C
USH00023160 1990 557 601a 1083 1528a 1917 2812 2658 2456 2212 1816 1182a 432a

The USHCN Daily data shows temperatures recorded every day
that summer, and 26.42C
USC00023160199006TMAX  194  0  250  0  289  0  294  0  289  0  267  0  272  0  294  0  267  0  211  0  222  0  244  0  239  0  233  0  211  0  228  0  261  0  278  0  278  0  283  0  317  0  322  0  333  0  333  0  339  0  339  0  333  0  339  0  339  0  339  0-9999
USC00023160199007TMAX  333  0  294  0  261  0  294  0  267  0  267  0  206  0  222  0  233  0  267  0  289  0  300  0  267  0  256  0  222  0  250  0  261  0  267  0  300  0  283  0  261  0  261  0  256  0  239  0  233  0  244  0  267  0  283  0  289  0  306  0  261  0
USC00023160199008TMAX  261  0  228  0  256  0  283  0  261  0  267  0  267  0  289  0  294  0  294  0  283  0  278  0  178  0  133  0  161  0  194  0  233  0  233  0  211  0  222  0  233  0  244  0  244  0  233  0  233  0  256  0  267  0  261  0  289  0  289  0  239  0

Fort Valley is a very rural US Forest Service research station near Flagstaff, and is as well sited as a thermometer can be.

NOAA declared two thirds of the recorded daily data at Fort Valley, Arizona from 1990 to be missing, and replaced them with fake higher temperatures

How could they possibly think they would get away with this?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Another Smoking Gun Of NOAA Fraud

  1. mat says:

    I’m gonna go out on limb here and say, Because they always have got away with it. And as far as the MSM goes, they will this time as well….

    • Andy DC says:

      We were all brought up with certain American ideals and a sense that we lived in a very special place that was worth fighting and dying for.

      Now it is downright depressing to wake up every morning, knowing what a rotton to the core cesspool this country has become. With evil, condescending people telling us what to think and not even allowing a civil scientific discussion of an important issue.

  2. gator69 says:

    “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,”
    -Jonathan Gruber, the Annual Health Economics Conference.

  3. ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

    The question has always been whether the estimated and calculated values were performed in an unbiased manner.

    With the discovery of the actual measured values we (Tony and those with computing skills) actually have a control set of data in order to evaluate whether these estimates and calculated values were done legitimately.

    Looking forward to reading more on this subject.

  4. richard says:

    Surely at some time you are going to be called upon to present this info.

  5. Steve Case says:

    Exactly where is this information stored?

    Tony’s computer?
    Internet Archives Way Back Machine?
    Anyone’s computer who downloaded UNHIDING THE DECLINE?
    All of the above?

    • tonyheller says:

      There must be tens of thousands of copies out there. Anyone who has been using my software for the last few years has them on their computer.

      • Steve Case says:

        Thanks for the reply.

        Is it on the WayBack Machine? If not can you request the Internet Archives to take a snapshot?

        I see they say this:

        “Only available for sites that allow crawlers.”

  6. MikeW says:

    Why doesn’t Trump put a stop to this?

    • Rah says:

      Too many fish to fry I suppose. He’s been going after the bigger fish as he promised to during the campaign. I’m beginning to think he should be attacking the smaller fish which support and enable the big fish. Death by a thousand cuts may be the way to go. The situation we find ourselves in did not develop overnight and will not be changed overnight.

  7. Mr GrimNasty says:

    These instances are probably down to genuine incompetence/mistakes, but whilst the data is giving the ‘right’ answer they have no motivation to keep checking the quality of what they are doing.

    They only get motivated to look for ‘errors’ when the data doesn’t give the ‘right’ results. It’s just a manifestation of their confirmation bias.

    • Steve Case says:

      And “they” never notice that their corrections predominantly only go one way.

    • CheshireRed says:

      Mr GrimNasty

      Sorry, nope, can’t accept that explanation. If true then errors would fall in all directions; the law of averages dictates that. Instead what we see is a relentless program of one-way adjustments that always fall *in favour of AGW theory*. In fact it gets worse because in past decades temps FALL while in later decades recent temps RISE. This creates a sharper temperature gradient and thus points to ‘more warming’. So only cooler in the past and only warmer in the present. What are the odds, eh?!

      All that plus every sea level rate rise is in favour, every OHC rise is in favour, every satellite adjustment is in favour too. It’s almost as if there’s a pattern emerging.

      The likelihood of hundreds of contradictory adjustments randomly falling solely in favour in AGW theory is millions to one. The only fluke here is NOAA, NASA/GISS, RSS and HadCrut had zero expectation of being caught. But they have, just as Mann was by McIntyre and McKitrick. Eventually every scam artists luck runs out.

  8. arn says:

    You don’t like data-declare it missing and replace it by whatever you want.

    You don’t have any data-pretend you have and pull some out of your butt .

    You get caught?
    No problem:Use good intentions,incompetence etc as excuse(that’s how politicians do it)

  9. kyle_fouro says:

    What’s most astonishing to me is that the lukewarmers just will not touch the fabricated data to any significant extent. Curry will mention it here and there but then the comments sections will immediately fall under Mosher and Zeke charm. Similar story with WUWT.

    I dare say that the key is to get THAT crowd to start taking this stuff more seriously.

  10. Uh-oh. I see some new code brewing. I think we’re going to see some VERY interesting charts in the next few days!

  11. AndyG55 says:

    Might be interesting to have a look at some more recent years, afterall, the EX have nearly reach 40-50% !.

    I haven’t had time to get “the code” up and running yet, (nor in the next couple of months :-( )

    … but I’m sure there are enough of you out there that have.

  12. David A says:

    Can anyone describe how the stations used and not used are determined, and does it vary monthly?

  13. Douglas Kubler says:

    The ironic thing is that when temperatures drop and an honest NOAA is operating the decline in temperatures will be very dramatic. NOAA has laid the foundation for a super decline that can’t be hidden..

  14. Barry says:

    An important question: how do these adjustments work in urban areas? Are they adjusted downwards? They should be.

    Why not collate all the measurements that show adjustments and do a scatterplot of adjusted temperatures versus actual? This will tell us if there is bias.

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.