Visualizing NOAA/NASA US Data Tampering

In 1991, NOAA showed little or no US warming and correctly showed the 1930’s as the hottest decade in the US. They showed the mean US temperature from 1901 to 1990 as 11.4C.

NOAA has since cooled the past, and now show the mean US temperature from 1901 to 1990 as 11.1C.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The next graph overlays the 2017 graph on the 1991 graph, at identical scales on both axes. NOAA creates US warming by cooling the past.

NASA does exactly the same thing.  Their 1999 US temperature graph correctly showed the 1930’s as the hottest decade in the US, with subsequent cooling through the end of the century.


NASA has since cooled the period 1920-1950, and massively warmed post-1980 temperatures, to turn the cooling trend into a warming trend.

graph.png (1130×700)

The next graph overlays the 2017 NASA graph on the 1999 NASA graph, with identical scales on both axes.

The US is the only place on Earth with reliable long term temperature data, and both NASA and NOAA have tampered with the data to turn post-1930 US cooling into warming.

But it is much worse than it seems. NOAA has almost no daily temperature data outside of North America prior to 1930, and very little prior to 1950.

stn-yrs.png (792×612)

In 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed no net global warming prior to 1970, and a sharp cooling after 1945.

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at

NASA has completely erased the post-1945 cooling, and created a large amount of warming prior to 1970.

The US temperature data has been tampered with to turn cooling into warming, and the global temperature data prior to 1950 is simply fake. It is time to put this global warming scam down once and for all.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Visualizing NOAA/NASA US Data Tampering

  1. richard says:

    Interesting piece over at WUWT

    ” A quote in the article from Dr. J. Murray Mitchell, Jr. of NOAA and member of the U.S National Science Board in 1974 gives the reason:

    “During the past 20 or 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but sharply over the last decade.”

    • tonyheller says:

      I’ve posted that National Geographic article and Murray Mitchell quote here dozens of times over the past decade, most recently in the past week.

      • richard says:

        You have indeed. Feel free to remove my comment.

        • richard says:

          I in turn have posted on WUWT that you have been flagging this up.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Nick Stokes, was told that it was J. Murray Mitchell who made the data for the 1974 NCAR chart. He says it isn’t found at the website,which exposes his dishonesty as he should know perfectly well that it was very unusual to post such charts in the first place,he can’t admit to the possibility that it really is from NCAR,where Mitchell worked at the time.

          He still disputes the chart,as he did the other day at WUWT.

          • RAH says:

            He has no choice but to dispute it but he has lost. Things are difficult for climate change cultists these days. Dr. Spencer just dealt a big blow to the Guardian’s already shredded credibility. They should be required to make a full blown retraction of this article and demand an explanation from David Gallaher of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

          • tonyheller says:

            Given that NCAR’s two top people – Walter Orr Roberts and Steven Schneider – were pushing global cooling in 1974, Stokes’ claim is idiotic.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Tony, Nick is being an ass since I posted a list of 285 published science papers at WUWT yesterday,that discussed in some way about the 1970’s and future cooling. Nick tried to fight the obvious with paper #96,saying it doesn’t support that.

            I had posted paper #1 on the list,which is this gem:

            The heading for 156 papers was this,

            “Cooling Since 1940, Forecasts for Continued Cooling/Ice Age (156 papers)

            1. Kukla, 1972

            Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events. A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1oC in the next hundred years. A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions.”


            Nick ignored this and the following papers under this heading,to push his great big lie.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Was hilarious when he tried to brush of the letter from Brown University to the actual President !

            Poor little chump is caught in his own headlights, and is too old and senile to know it.

          • richard verney says:

            The problem with acknowledging the past is that the warmist would have to concede:

            1. that natural variability is large, and natural variability is not understood.
            2. that it appears that climate has cyclical trends
            3. there is nothing unusual about the trends of the last 50 years.
            4 they do not understand what is going on.

            Instead they look ridiculous and untrustworthy when they seek to deny the numerous articles and forecasts for a cooling planet, and claim that these were outliers.

            I consider that such approach is plain daft, but lt appears that that is all that they are left with.

  2. Hivemind says:

    It is good to see the two data sets charted on a single image, instead of the blink charts (animated GIFs) that you usually use. Animated GIFs lose their animation when I paste them into Word for my permanent record.

  3. arn says:

    I’d really like to know how it feels
    to be an AGW zealot,come here regularly,
    see all the manipulations and lies being exposed
    and reading all those article from the very own priests about gobal cooling

    and still pretending that everything is fine and that the crazy ones are those who do not believe in all these lies.

    (and these are the very same people asking,why so many horrible things have happened on these planet and that they must not be repeated,
    while behaving the very same way as those who committed all these horrible things)

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      It is close to impossible to find AGW zealots who are not Leftists and the most zealous ones exhibit their totalitarianism on daily basis. Over the years I’ve met quite a few personally and they let me know how they “feel”. It is no different than how various Communists, Socialists and Nazis felt and feel about the hell on earth they created. The hundreds of millions of dead don’t matter to them—they are just collateral damage—and many of them enjoy the killing outright.

      • arn says:

        Well,i came to the conclusion that someone who still supports a system that has killed tens of millions of people
        (i’m not talking about nazis as they’ve either learned their lesson well or know at least that they are full of shit-i’m talking about communists and all other marxistic derivatives)
        is absolutely immune to any kind of reason or contradictory believe.
        (and that’s maybe the reason why the supporters of this system are also supporters and defenders of the other mass murdering system hiding behind the veil called religion of peace,
        (reminds me of Lucky Luciano & Mayer Lansky who fused
        their organisations to create the biggest mafia of the USA
        and terrorize the country)
        and that’ s why Obama was able to drop more than a
        100000 bombs and attack so many countries without even being criticized.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Yes, they are immune to all rational arguments against their ideologies but National Socialism and International Socialism are connected vessels. For the most part the surviving Nazis haven’t learned a thing. When the allies filled their world with rubble the comrades just drifted to other Leftist movements and parties.

      • Steve Case says:

        When the average lefty starts telling me that the problem is “Too many people …” I always interrupt right away with, “You first.” And that generally stops the conversation.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          That is such a rude and unproductive thing to say. Who would manage the required reduction and liquidation?

        • GeologyJim says:

          I agree, Steve Case, and I have the same reply to the “Keep it in the Ground!” crowd

          No more fossil fuels? OK, take a pipe wrench and turn off your natural gas supply, and throw the switch on your household/office electric supply and stop those evil hydrocarbons from corrupting your life

          Lemme know how that works out fer ya.

          • RAH says:

            They also need to dump everything they own that was produced using petroleum products. Cloths, computer, pads, phones, TVs, etc…….

  4. Dougmanxx says:

    This is why the use of “anomaly” is so insidious. Without any idea what the average was used to derive “anomaly”, “anomaly” is meaningless. And a perfect way for a person to disguise the fact that current “average temperatures” are basically the same as “average temperatures” from forty years ago.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    Just for comparison, Here is a combined graph of US temperatures from 2005 when that big spike on the NASA chart occurs.

    It shows UAH, RSS and the pristine USCRN

    As you can see, USCRN seems to respond more to warmer r cooler spikes, and the bulge from the 2015/2016 El Nino/Blob has basically disappeared.

    Once that El Nino effect has fully subsided, the level will drop back to as close to ZERO TREND as possible.

  6. Greg P says:

    Discussing 1930-1950 temperatures is not only a strawman argument, but also disingenuous rhetoric.

    Atmospheric monitoring equipment has improved drastically since the 1930s and any data pre-1950s are questionable based on the equipment used to monitor temperatures. Gov’t agencies have acknowledged this many times. This is why pre-1950s data is hard to fit into current temperature trends and also why all agencies use the 1950-1980 avg temperature as a baseline to compare current temperature trends. If we are serious about scientific investigation, as opposed grinding political axes, let’s focus on post-1980s avg temperatures (data gathered using higher quality monitoring equipment).

    But really, who denies that anthropogenic pollution is causing rising temperatures? Since even Exxon has admitted this to be true, “alarmist” seems to be a misnomer. I think a better name would be “realist”. Get with the 21st century!

    • tonyheller says:

      Post 1980 satellite temperatures correlate almost perfectly for the AMO. Are you an ocean circulation denier?
      You are stuck in Arrhenius’ bogus thinking about CO2 from the 19th century.

      • Greg P says:

        You response makes me think you don’t really understand AMO and how it reflects (or doesn’t) temperature increases. In fact, AMO signal suggests we have been in a cooling trend the last few decades, yet global temperatures are increasing. It is known that AMO “masks” the effects of increasing avg global temperatures.

        Not sure if you can read actual peer-reviewed research since you aren’t part of any kind of research organization (would explain the sort of garbage research that shows up on this site), but here’s a rundown on recent AMO trends by a group of *reputable* researchers. Perhaps you will want to study up on this. After all, any self-respecting climate researcher should know these things.

        • tonyheller says:

          The AMO shows almost perfect correlation with lower troposphere temperatures. But thanks for showing us your climate incompetence.

          • Greg P says:

            Ironically, on the front page of the Seeing Wood for Trees:
            “I started this site in 2008 because I wanted to dig underneath what seemed like extreme claims and counter-claims in the “Global Warming Debate”. Eight years on, it now seems clear to me that CO2 is indeed the primary driver of global warming, which is proceeding at roughly 1.5°C per century, but with some interesting short and long-term cycles overlaid.”

            Although I relish the irony of you using this particular site to support your argument, it did take the guy 8 years to come to the above realization, so maybe you just haven’t done enough homework to get there yet.

            Why would the AMO parallel troposphere temps so well? Well, there is a painfully obvious answer: because troposphere temps are a direct result of sea surface temps, and the Atlantic is a major determining factor in SSTs. So by tautological definition, yes, the AMO necessarily follows SST/tropospheric temps. Another misleading, strawman argument.

            It seems that when you accuse someone of “climate incompetence” or some other equally inane charge, it is only as a smokescreen to cover up your own pseudo-science.

          • tonyheller says:

            Your psycho-babble is very amusing, but doesn’t alter the data. The AMO runs on a 60-70 year cycle, and currently appears to be near its peak. It has nothing to do with CO2.

          • gator69 says:

            Speaking of psycho-babble…

            We estimate the low-frequency internal variability of Northern Hemisphere (NH) mean temperature using observed temperature variations, which include both forced and internal variability components, and several alternative model simulations of the (natural + anthropogenic) forced component alone. We then generate an ensemble of alternative historical temperature histories based on the statistics of the estimated internal variability.

            Great science fiction, bad science.

    • Jl says:

      “Exxon admitted this to be true…”. Oh, wow. Debate over (Sarc off)

    • Andy DC says:

      Here we go again with this utter nonsense that we were too primitive a civilization to measure temperatures back in 1930 or 1950. If that is so, why do “climate scientists” believe they have a right to cool those temperatures relative to the present? Isn’t it just as likely that they should raise those temperatures? Obviously not, because that would not conform their bias.

      The fact of the matter is that there were thousands of Government calibrated thermometers and Government designed shelters in use back during that time. Sure you are going to have some extreme readings on both sides, but by and large the readings were in excellent agreement and any 3rd rate statistician could easily come up with something extremely close to a mean temperature.

      Who would you believe? Citizens and law enforcement officials of 1935 who were keeping records out a sense of duty and civic pride, or a bunch of agenda driven climate “scientists” from today?

      • Andy DC says:

        The 1930-1950 also represents the highly inconvenient warming “blip” in temperatures, both nationally in the US and worldwide. As we know from Climategate, there is nothing that alarmists would rather do than expunge that “blip” from the record book and start their charts during a peak period of notable coolness, like around 1979. Their hypocricy and phoniness knows no bounds!

  7. MrZ says:

    Hi Tony!
    I know you will think I am an imbecill but please be careful with your TOBS statements in your book. Their adjustments are correct if we accept there was a strict rule how temps should be read. You need to find proof min/max ment for the day 00-24 not 17-17 or 08-08.
    No offence I just want you to succeed and the TOBS corrections are a vital part of your argument. Still many more arguments in terms of hot days etc but they will target what they see as your weakest argument.

    As a fan


  8. MrZ says:

    Yes I know. It’s compelling but hanging on a thin string. Tony knows what I mean. Don’t want to argue negatively on his site.

    • richard verney says:

      A skeptic should be a truth seeker and thus willing to put forward and listen to arguments on both sides of the debate.

      All sites are better for having a range of views and opinions posted. It is only in that manner that the science can be tested, and group think errors avoided.

      I see no harm in you raising your concerns regarding TOBs since this is used to massage the data, and thus it is extremely pertinent to know and fully understand what is going on and why, and whether there is any merit in the adjustments made.

      You are also correct to counsel the need to be cautious and careful when attacking, if one is to avoid being shot down oneself.

      I am confident that Tony will back up his arguments with soundly sourced data (if there is such a thing in climate science).

  9. Markus Specht says:

    Hello Steven Goddard…Your work is amazing. It is possible to download and install your tool. That’s great. I would like to do a website where people can generate the graphs online. Where I can get this data from NOAA? Is this public to everyone or just for the scientists? Greets from Switzerland

    • tonyheller says:

      I have released several different tools. Look at the links at the top of the page.

    • MrZ says:

      Hi Markus!

      For Web I guess you prefer DB rather than flat files. I can clean up my DB loading files and share them with you if you want. That would get you kick started. You’d need PHP and MySQL (Maria) DB.

      The more of us that can replicate what Tony is doing in deferent ways the better…

  10. This is a topic that is close to my heart… Many thanks! Exactly where are your contact details though?

  11. Tanyrg says:

    Chief Brexit negotiator admits fishing deal is not likely

    European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and British Prime Minister’s Europe adviser David Frost 5 are seen at start of the first round of post Brexit trade deal talks between the EU and britain, about Brussels, Belgium March 2, 2020. Oliver Hoslet/Pool via REUTERS/File Photofisheries agreement by a July deadline on friday, As Michel Barnier offered UK opposition parties extra time of up to two years on the transition period.

    Brexit scrutiny committee the week before the next round of discussions with the EU.

    “We don’t regard fisheries as something that can be traded for any other bits of the negotiation. considering what it takes very important happening at the end of the year which is that we get back control of our own waters, he explained

    “Any agreements have simply got to match that reality, Boris Johnson’s top Brexit recognized said, As he described the divisions over the issue between your two sides.

    “The EU is still coming to terms with the fact that there is a large country in Europe that doesn’t want to be part of the EU’s structure, He generated.

    The joint Political assertion, Which sets out the aspiration for the dialogue over a zero tariff zero quota trade deal, Was finalised immediately as the Withdrawal Agreement. it requires a fisheries agreement to be struck by July 1.

    Coronavirus pandemic. but nevertheless, Failure to reach a deal could harden EU attitudes at a time when the bloc’s leaders are consumed by the coronavirus pandemic.

    The UK wants a Norway style fishing arrangement with annual talks over access and catch shares for EU boats. It also wants the shares to be judged on such basis as zonal attachment, Which the UK says more closely represents the amount of fish in UK waters than the system of historic catch patterns that are the foundation of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

    The EU wants reciprocal the means to access UK waters “Under existing situations” And for the fisheries agreement to be part of the free trade agreement and rules out yearly negotiations on prices.

    The next round of Brexit negotiations will be held next week on video conference by the coronavirus pandemic. the previous round ended in mutual recrimination.

    Bad tempered public letters as talks appeared on the stage that collapse.

    pressure is on both sides to deliver a breakthrough after repeated rounds ending in bad tempered stalemate because next week is the final set of talks before a planned June summit to evaluate progress.

    Boris Johnson was required to attend that “higher level meeting” Mr frost told MPs. The meeting is the last chance for the UK to request extra time of up to two years to the Brexit transition period, Which finishes towards the end of this year.

    If the UK and EU fail to finalise the free trade deal by that deadline, And no extension is sought, Both sides will be forced to trade on less lucrative WTO terms from January 1.

    Downing Street has repeatedly ruled out any extension to the cross over period. even though, Michel Barnier wrote to Remain sustaining opposition MPs, Telling them the EU was still ready to negotiate a delay.

    “I take into consideration your views on a possible extension of the transition period, he was quoted saying, “Such an extension cord of up to one or two years can be agreed,

    Any extension would involve Britain paying the EU to remain area of the Single Market and Customs Union.

    Under fire adviser Dominic Cummings but mentioned he spoke to Mr Cummings “continuously” And the pm only once a fortnight.

    He said he was confident that the national Brexit negotiating strategy would survive Charmdate even if Mr Cummings was sacked.

    Coronavirus magazine live: Test and trace scheme to launch tonight, As Boris Johnson tells UK to ‘move on’ from Dominic Cummings rowOnly one third of people in first coronavirus contact tracing scheme in UK self isolated on request.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.