NOAA US Data Tampering Update

According to NOAA, the US is burning up.

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

But before data tampering, the US has been cooling for the past 90 years.  The claimed warming trend is entirely due to data tampering.

The data is altered in a spectacular hockey stick – with temperatures before the year 2000 progressively cooled, and temperatures after 2000 progressively warmed.

When plotted vs. CO2, it becomes clear that US warming is the ultimate junk science.  The data is being precisely altered to match CO2 theory, with an R² of 0.975.

Spreadsheet    Data

A lot of this fraud is done with good old fashioned “just making stuff up.” Almost half of the data is currently being fabricated. Forty-seven percent of the monthly US temperature data is marked by NOAA with an “E’ – which means it is estimated.

This junk science may seem really, really awful, but you are a racist if you don’t accept the reality of man-made warming data-tampering.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to NOAA US Data Tampering Update

  1. Dan Z. says:

    Absolutely incredible. I’ve been following you for a few years now and it’s still astounding. Great job.

    Are you going to do more videos? Or has YouTube acted to limit your videos’ reach?

  2. Joe in Wyo says:

    Wow. Those graphical representations of the data are damning to the so called scientists…. sucks to be them when other folks become aware of their chicanery…
    Great job as usual Tony!

  3. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    “47% of the monthly US temperature data is marked by NOAA with an “E’ – which means it is estimated.”
    Or as you have pointed out, fabricated.

    We need to contact the White House and call attention to this fraud. Benjamin Friedman needs to either correct this, or step aside.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

    • garyh845 says:

      Call the House Science Committee – need a hearing on this alone (before they loose the House).

      House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
      2321 Rayburn House Office Building
      Washington, DC 20515
      Phone: 202-225-6371
      Fax: 202-226-0113

  4. Gerald Machnee says:

    We need an official comment from terak.

  5. Alan Tomalty says:

    Tony why havent you brought all of your findings to a US prosecutor’s office?

  6. Anon says:

    Hi Tony,

    Off topic, but about fraud. Check the video out in this story. It is absolutely unbelievable:

    THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/bill-browder-most-dangerous-man-world

    This is tied into Putin’s comments at the Helsinki Press Conference last week about $400,000,000 going from Bill Browder to the Clinton Campaign. The video probably won’t be up for long as it has been banned in Europe & the United States. I guarantee it will be one of the most shocking videos you have seen in a long time. And it is also pertinent to Climate Change, where one story gets out and the obsequious press just echoes it and the perps rely on the media. I did not think I wanted to see the film, but after the first 10 mins I was hooked. One of the most shocking web of lies you will ever see and hugely responsible for all the Russia hysteria, all the enrich an American Billionaire. wow!

  7. Andy DC says:

    NOAA has taken out all of the evil data that is racist, sexist and homophobic, and also has expunged any data that clearly flies in the face of settled science.

    • Josh says:

      Which is exactly why NOAA is purposely changing the data in all the rural counties to show warming when there is none since rural areas are deep red.

  8. GW says:

    After 18 months of the Trump administration, I could not be more disappointed that this crap is still going on and these hucksters still have jobs. But I guess ill get there when it becomes 24 months, 30 months, etc., etc.

    • Gator says:

      Rome was not burned in a day…

    • RAH says:

      Withdraw from the Paris agreement, massive reforms of the EPA, dealing with illegal immigration, trade wars to try and level the playing field and gain economic leverage on China, tax cuts, negotiating with Putin, dealing with Rocket Man, making the economy work, dealing with an attempted silent coup and a hostile press, an uncompliant congress and senate, rolling back a plethora of administrative regulations, more court appointments than any other president in history in the amount of time in office, etc, etc, etc. All of that is nothing compared to squashing the likes of Gavin and the boobs at NOAA.

      Makes me wonder what your politics are GW.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I always ask people what they do besides voting every couple of years and commenting on the internet. Some of them came up with very imaginative and useful things to do.

  9. jackson says:

    the relationship between the temp. adjustments and the CO2 is absolutely beautiful.
    It looks like an unconscious bias has directed the adjustments to some degree…

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey jackson, “It looks like an unconscious bias has directed the adjustments to some degree…”

      I am not sure if you are being tongue in cheek or if you are serious. Personally, I did at one time go through a period where I thought that perhaps the CAGW “scientists” were suffering from confirmation bias. The fact is, they have been put on notice so many, many times of obvious errors in procedure and methodology that it is no longer reasonable to give them such benefit of a doubt. If an idiot came to you claiming that 5+5=9, and you showed him over and over that 5+5=10, you might not be surprised if he still persisted in his error. After all, he’s an idiot, right? On the other hand, if a mathematician claimed that 5+5=9, it should only take once to convince him of his error. The leading scientists of CAGW are experts in the field, not idiots (I expect to get some disagreement on this). They have been shown multiple times, definitively, explicitly and provably, that they are in error but instead of fixing their mistakes they just scream louder. If they were idiots they might be simply wrong, but since they are experts, they can no longer claim that. They are just liars, and the damage they have done to the reputation of science is incalculable.

  10. DM says:

    HadCRUT data is similarly flawed. For more info, click
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/07/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
    Skip down to the “Executive Summary” part.

  11. Kelton Peery says:

    Tony,

    Is the detailed method of how NOAA is making these “adjustments” available to the public? Do we know exactly what NOAA is doing in these manipulations and estimates? Have the methods and formulas for these adjustments been analyzed outside of NOAA?

    It seems to me that if NOAA has fudged the data, it should be evident by looking closely at what they are doing specifically and in detail.

  12. Are “pre-massaged” and “post-massaged” data available on NOAA’s website?

  13. Phil Toler says:

    Interesting recent posts on this subject by Clive Best at http://clivebest.com/blog/

  14. Mohib says:

    I just came across this February 2019 post on WhatsUpWithThat.com:

    How to make use of the world’s most accurate surface temperature data
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/25/how-to-make-use-of-the-worlds-most-accurate-temperature-data/

    I’m sure everyone here knows what the USCRN is but, for the uninitiated, a description appears below. Essentially from what I understand this is the best data on the planet. It’s a new, US, network of instruments so the data only goes back to 2004.

    Now check out the first graph (linked below) at the above post. It plots USCRN v CO2. Since it’s data only goes back to 2004, it starts at 375 ppm and goes to 410 ppm and the R^2 correlation to temperature is 0.0355, i.e. it is basically flat.

    I’m no expert on these things, but if I compare that to the same period (375 ppm to 410 ppm) on Tony’s graph of the USHCN v CO2 above, and its R^2 correlation of 0.975, it seems to me something is clearly wrong when we have a state-of-the-art, unadjusted temperature data set has an R^2 of 0.0355 and an adjusted temperature data set has a correlation of 0.975.

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/clip_image002-1.png

    “The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)consists of 114 stations developed, deployed, managed, and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the continental United States for the express purpose of detecting the national signal of climate change…. [USCRN is a] state-of-the-art ultra-reliable triple redundant weather stations placed on pristine environments. As a result, these temperature data need none of the adjustments that plague the older surface temperature networks, such as USHCN and GHCN, which have been heavily adjusted to attempt corrections for a wide variety of biases. Using NOAA’s own USCRN data, which eliminates all of the squabbles over the accuracy of and the adjustment of temperature data, we can get a clear plot of pristine surface data. It could be argued that a decade is too short and that the data is way too volatile for a reasonable trend analysis, but let’s see if the new state-of-the-art USCRN data shows warming.” — https://bit.ly/32zBcVc

    • Mohib says:

      Actually I just realized the USCRN plot is of temperature and Tony’s is of USHCN temperature adjustments so the two graphs are comparing different numbers to CO2.

      Apologies.

    • Mohib says:

      Actually, having thought about this a little more, it seems to me something important is exposed. It’s obvious that the high quality, pristine USCRN data should be the baseline in all this analysis — at least since 2004 or 375 ppm.

      It seems to me that if the USCRN temp data v CO2 has R^2 of just 0.0355 (i.e. no correlation between temp and CO2), then any adjustments made to the lower quality USHCN should be to reduce the USHCN temp v CO2 R^2 correlation so it is also 0.0355 (i.e no correlation) and matches the high quality USCRN data.

      But instead the exact opposite is being done, and the USHCN data is being adjusted to R^2 of 0.975, an almost perfect correlation (which USCRN data says doesn’t exist). Am I missing something, or is it self-evident this makes zero sense and has zero justification, leaving aside adjusting data to an R^2 correlation of 0.975 is itself evidence of “the ultimate junk science” (as Tony says in his videos).

      However, on looking at Tony’s 61% Fake Data posts (https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/), it struck me that it’s the combination of the fake+real data that’s giving the perfect 0.975 temp v CO2 correlation. Tony explains the real temperature data (even after adjustments) has no trend, so the fake (“modelled”) temperature data must have an even higher correlation with CO2 to give a net R^2 correlation of 0.975 (i.e. the “average” of the fake (“modelled”) and adjusted, real data). So it might be interesting to plot the temp data from the graph below (from his 61% Fake Data post) against CO2 and see what that shows.

      In any event if the “average” of the fake (“modelled”) data + adjusted, real data gives a perfect net R^2 correlation of 0.975, it seems to me that the “modelled” data can’t really be “modelled” but, instead, is being determined from some kind of reverse calculation to find the “modelled” value needed to move the real data so the combined model+adjusted, real data net out at 0.975.

  15. Hernandez says:

    Data from NOAA requires authentication, even though web address has “pub” (public?) in it.
    Was it always that way?

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.