NOAA IS Very Consistent With Their Data Tampering

The graph below shows raw (blue) and adjusted (red) temperature trends for each USHCN station, sorted by state. NOAA adjusts tampers with the century long temperature trend at the vast majority of US stations, and turns most of the from negative trends into positive trends.

The measured thermometer data shows a sharp drop in US maximum temperatures over the past century.

NOAA massively tampers with the data to turn a cooling trend into a warming trend.

The data tampering forms a real hockey stick, unlike Mikey Mann’s fake one.

And in the ultimate science fraud, NOAA precisely tampers with data to conform with their CO2 warming theory.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to NOAA IS Very Consistent With Their Data Tampering

  1. Andy DC says:

    The concepts that Tony addresses are not so complicated than any high sch0ol student can’t easily download the data and plot the charts for themselves. I have no idea how or why the alarmists thought they get away with such massive bookkeeping fraud. But cooking the books through massive data alteration is exactly what they did, right under everybody’s nose!

    • gator69 says:

      “You can’t do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that,” Gruber said. “In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

  2. Andy DC says:

    It is shameless, criminal and totally idiotic to produce a fraudulent chart that any six grader can easily debunk by using the exact same data set!

  3. nvw says:

    Little puzzled by your first graph. It claims to be adjusted temperature trends for each station sorted by state. Why are some states repeated on the x-axis (eg. Co, NY and Tx among others) and some states are not included (e.g. Ma or La)

    • tonyheller says:

      The title of the graph reads “At each USHCN Station”
      Always a good idea to actually read the graph before posting.

  4. kyle_fouro says:

    Where do ocean temps fit into all of this? Lack of long-term data to make meaningful conclusions?

    • tonyheller says:

      Lack of meaningful long term and short term ocean data. This graph is for USHCN stations, which are located entirely on land.

  5. Nutation_discombobulation says:

    I really realised all was not well with the AGW theory when I saw what they did to the record for Auckland, New Zealand.
    Considering where Auckland city is situated, it is effectively on an isthmus with the Tasman Sea on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other. The weather and ultimately the climate are hugely governed by massive weather systems originating from, or traversing those vast oceans.

    However, it is true as the city has sprawled over the decades, the heat trapping capacity has increased and so a level of “homogenisation” is required to either boost the earlier data, or lower the more recent, but what we see is clear evidence that their algorithm has a signed inversion bias bug, it has lowered the earlier and maintained the later.

    I notice similar biased computation errors appear in much of what Tony has exposed too, so it must be true, there is a global effort to ensure some agenda other than just the pocket gilding of a few. They must have thought us kiwis were way too dumb to notice such massive butchering of the data. It would have aided immensely the global heating trend no doubt.

    The graph appeared in a recent paper (On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO 2 Endangerment Finding) that confirmed in my mind there is a very serious level of corruption within the global climate cartel.
    The abridged version is available here for anyone who has not seen it:

    • arn says:

      Whereever is a CARTEL there (sooner than later) is a serious level of corruption.

      Whereever it smells like indoctrination,intimidation,name-calling,censorship and gang/mob-style behaviour
      there is a lie/scam going on which is protected with fascist methods.

      Whenever people react histerical instead of calm and reasonable when you question normal things which everyone would question(“why is there still ice in the arctic//New York still is not flooded// how can 0.01% co2 have such an amazing impact on climate though it is a very weak climate gas “)
      you can be sure they have been conditioned to react that way,as they must be conditioned to avoid/destroy dialogue because as soon as they let a free dialogue happen chance is high that they will realise that something is wrong with the official narrative.

      And there are many things where free dialog is not allowed in Western world((theories/groups/happenings etc which must not be criticized-
      and all of them are full of crap/contradictions etc as soon as you take a closer look)

  6. Given the amount of tapering by NOAA. I wonder if we can rely on the data from NODC for 0-2000m mean temperature of the oceans?
    (Tips: Hit the button ´Make time series´ to generate the curve)

    More than 90% of the energy absorbed by CO2 is supposed to got into the oceans by the theory propounded by IPCC.

    Is there anyone here who knows anything about the reliability of the ocean temperature records?

    • etudiant says:

      Not a real answer, but I do remember that the ARGO data was adjusted after the initial readings failed to show the desired trends.
      There was some handwaving about the thermometers not being properly calibrated and hence needing adjustment. I’ve never seen any sort of follow up report that lays out the problem and justifies the solution that was adopted.

      • gator69 says:

        If anyone thinks that global land temperature is spotty at BEST, try ocean temps, which have gone through massive methodology changes that make it anyone’s “adjustment”. And anyone who claims to know all of the global changes in ocean heat to within a tenth of a degree is a big fat liar, and likely much worse.

        • JonA says:

          They don’t report it as a temperature though, they
          report it as OHC and report it in Joules so it looks
          super scary.

          They don’t measure Joules, they measure temperature.
          If the purported delta in OHC is converted back into
          temperature then it quickly becomes clear that it’s
          hard to make a case for any statistically significant
          increase in OHC.

          If you point out that the data we have is a convenience
          sample, that we don’t have a time machine to check
          homogenization, that we have no real idea of instrument
          errors/uncertainty/operator bias as it varies through
          time, that statistical techniques are abused (i.e. LoLN)
          etc. etc. then one is just labeled as a denier.

          In general, climate science has no grasp on precision,
          accuracy, resolution and uncertainty (structural and
          measurement). We’re supposed to believe that the
          average of 100+ climate models – all of which are
          parameterised differently (no unique solution) – is
          meant to have some significance other than chance.


          Do NOAA publish their homogenization methodology?
          if so, it should be trivial for someone with the relevant
          expertise to establish whether the correlation highlighted
          by our host above is spurious or not.

  7. frederik wisse says:

    The USA is punishing itself , because it had choosen liars as its presidents . The civil servants including the weather-services had to go along with this rotten culture by lying and cheating themselves . Cut out this cancer or otherwise society will collapse . Let us hope Trump will succeed as the alternative is very scary . Europe is nothing better right now , but also here the man in the street is getting more and more sceptical of the green baloney and its related burocrats .

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Speaking of green baloney… a Swiss company just installed the first commercial grade atmospheric-CO2 capture unit (shown). The CO2 is sold to a nearby greenhouse. Of course the system requires blowers that run 24 hours per day, and heat from a nearby power plant to regenerate the substrate. It removes a paltry 900 tons (US tons) of CO2 per year at a cost of about US$1,000 per ton. Note: The air in a typical physics classroom easily weighs a ton.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        I just checked my math: half-a-ton

      • “The CO2 is sold to a nearby greenhouse.”

        I wish that the Greens would ask themselves the question: Why would a greenhouse buy CO2?

        This should give them a clue:
        “For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.” – Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

        Burning fossil fuels is probably the greenest act ever done by humans.

        • Kris Johanson says:

          Your last sentence… Yep, I agree as long as sulfur and NOx and particulates are removed, and modernly they all are thanks to air pollution control technology developed by profit seeking capitalists and entrepreneurs who were engaged in “actual” environmental cleanup

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Yep, I agree as long as sulfur and NOx and particulates are removed,”

            Biomess…… not so much !!!


          • Kris Johanson says:

            I don’t know why we can’t pull particulates out of a biomass flue gas stream, just like anything else. Or are they talking about private wood-burning?

            California used to have biomass power plants all up and down the state, say 25 years ago. I know that because I used to specialize in water/wastewater treatment in the energy and petro industries. There was even a big trash burner just south of Los Angeles at that time. The biomass plants burned rice husks and pecan shells. Several big rice burners were operating in the Central Valley. There were even two modern coal fired plants in the Valley that are now shut down. Now it’s all natural gas here; the last Nuke (Diablo Canyon) is slated for retirement.

          • Rah says:

            Along I-55 in SE Missouri and NE Arkansas in the fall you can see clouds of smoke as they burn the stubble from the rice plants off in the fields.

            Yesterday while driving north up I-55 in that area a crop duster dropped a few pellets of what ever he was broadcasting on my truck. I like watching them work. That would be a cool job I think.

  8. CheshireRed says:

    There’s a serious credibility issue here. Not just for climate data (which we all know has been manipulated to serve higher agendas) but for the United States itself. If there’s any question over the credibility of their data, upon which government policies costing taxpayers untold billions depend, then there MUST be investigations. Independent statisticians should be tearing these numbers apart, verifying and confirming or rejecting as evidence falls.

    Trump could do this in a heartbeat and it’d be almost impossible for anyone to seriously deny the legitimacy of such a policy. If data is found to be correct it’s credibility is enhanced, if data is found wanting it’s rejected while the credibility of the verification process is enhanced. Publish both the data and results so they’re transparent and verifiable in the public domain. Get it right now, Mr President.

  9. The climate industry really need to shape up.

    Many disciplines have learned the hard way to demand reliable reference data. We do have standards for independent laboratories and their accreditation. (Accreditation is an official acknowledgement of the ability of a laboratory to provide measurements results within stated uncertainties.)

    A laboratory that wishes an accreditation of its ability to perform a well-defined test or measurement will have to follow the following international standard: ISO/IEC 17025:2005 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” . It will also have to go through regular independent audits.

    Further, BIPM (Bureau International des Poids and Measures) is the intergovernmental organisation through which Member States act together on matters related to measurement science and measurement standards. BIPM has provided freely available standards and guidelines that are relevant also to the provision of temperature records:
    Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)
    The International System of Units
    International Vocabulary of Metrology

    The climate industry (including governments) is far from following the standards that are followed by other industries and often imposed by governments on other industries.

    And that the same organizations that provide climate models are also allowed to provide temperature records is beyond belief.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      You just nailed it. All industrial activities – anyone doing anything serious – have measurement standards up the wazoo, 1000-page Manuals of Practice, QC standards and procedures…. and practically every industry has independent AUDIT processes all up and down the line….. and every University science & engineering program in this country has mandatory ETHICS curriculum somewhere along the line

      • AndyG55 says:

        “has mandatory ETHICS curriculum somewhere along the line”

        Peter Gleick and many other “climate scientists™” (lol) must have skipped those classes.

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.