61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now Fake

The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data.  Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity.  The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products by Ross McKitrick :: SSRN

In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020 (next year.)

The Milwaukee Journal – Google News Archive Search

The Press-Courier – Google News Archive Search

But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA.  Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.

NASA 1999   NASA 2016

The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations.  The red line shows the graph they release to the public, and has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.

Spreadsheet         Data

If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it.  Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.

The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.

Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory.  The ultimate junk science.

Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up.  In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.

I grouped the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:

  1. Measured and adjusted (blue)
  2. Estimated (red)

Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.

The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data.  Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.

Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.


But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.  Of course they still has a few more months to heat the US up six degrees.

The Press-Courier – Google News Archive Search

They may be having some success tonight.  All the hot air from the “Green New Deal” seems to be melting the snow around Washington DC.

District of Columbia Doppler Weather Radar Map – AccuWeather.com

There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to 61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now Fake

  1. DCA says:

    61%? Holy cow!
    How can they even pretend to call it science when they are just making stuff up?
    The term “policy-based evidence-making” comes to mind.

  2. Mr Sir says:

    I’ll just leave this here:

    • spike55 says:

      Meaningless nonsense, like everything else you post.

      And nothing to do with the FACT that the temperature records are base-level FRAUD in every sense of the word.

      Do you REALLY condone that sort of MANUFACTURE of data ?

      • WolfgangBlack says:

        That sort loves to scream “muh science proves it” and “97% of scientists agree” yet don’t understand the scientific method at all.
        It is part of their programming by the media.

    • Gator says:

      You should have left it where you found it. Once again Little Man shows his even tinier intellect.

    • dave1billion says:

      Did you draw that? If you did, then at least you’ll get some respect from me since that requires talent.

      If not, please make your own arguments in your own words. It’s okay if you’re even paraphrasing others, but a smug little meaningless cartoon only shows where you’re coming from.

      Your post carries as much weight as a cartoon showing Hillary Clinton with devil horns and a pitchfork. If you saw that, would it go any way towards convincing you that she’s literally the devil?

      Also, try replacing the cross in the third panel panel with “IPCC” and the text with “If Global Warming isn’t Real, then Explain This!”

      But I doubt that you’re capable of that level of perspective.

    • LexingtonGreen says:

      That has to be the lamest cartoon I have seen. And there have been bad ones.

  3. Johansen says:

    NOAA directly contradicting NASA and Hansen only 3 years later. Classic!

  4. John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

    One of the bad things about these global data adjustments is that it will put back real Climate research and our understanding of climate cycles. All papers published using these fraudulent time series as a basis for their findings will be worthless. Sad!

  5. Vasco says:

    Science is tangible when you have a car, a phone or any gadget or service. Climate science theories are very difficult to prove and feel, a science that you cannot replicate experiences or theories. It is just a statistically exercise about past data, with a clear objective: ideology. By alarming people, they can forced the money for climate investigation which in turn is use to support anti-capitalist politics and ideology (US democrats, socialists and any extreme left wing party worldwide). And with the support of the new born activists-capitalists that sell green technologies. This is what I call “climate terrorism”.

  6. steve case says:

    The latest GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI came out a few days ago, and compared to the November 2018 edition, 47% of the 1668 monthly entries had been changed. All of the adjustments for the months of 1972 through 2018 (except for December 2004) were adjusted up. Of the 442 adjustments prior to the 1972 data 90% were adjusted down.

    This goes on every month.

  7. Gator says:

    Imagine the noise from the left if skeptics were caught altering data. Just for fun we should start our own official temperature adjustments. We could start with the obvious UHI which alarmists do not account for, and easily justify cooling modern temperatures while raising historic values.

    Then get the popcorn and watch as lefty heads start exploding. It would be a wonderful teachable moment.

    • -B- says:

      It would be used to discredit everyone who doesn’t believe the official narrative. And since they have the media it will be nothing but headlines of how skeptics proliferate fake data/news. It’s not a tactic that will work. Better to put them in the position of trying to hide the information of what is going on.

      The tactic I prefer is to show that the entire warming signal is the opinion of government funded experts who’s results are then used as justification for more and higher taxes to fund more government and micromanagement of people’s lives. It’s very difficult to argue against, because there’s no debate that they adjust the data. It moves “settled science” into the opinion of experts. It’s not science at all, it’s authority. I usually leave off with that people can believe authority if they wish. A bit of shaming them into thinking for themselves.

      Understanding why what authority is doing with temperature data is invalid only requires a fifth grade understanding of science. Well at least I learned it in fifth grade science class. People just need to be knocked out of their laziness.

      While it would be nice to adjust the data properly for UHI it is not really needed to make the point. It wouldn’t have that big of an effect over a large data set like that of the USA. What will it do? Increase the cooling trend from the 1930s? Not warming is enough to show that the CO2 theory is invalid.

      • Gator says:

        While it would be nice to adjust the data properly for UHI it is not really needed to make the point. It wouldn’t have that big of an effect over a large data set like that of the USA.

        You clearly do not understand UHI. It is not just an urban problem, it can be found anywhere there is pavement, and extends well beyond the boundaries of large cities. All of the observed 20th century warming can likely be explained by selective station siting, and UHI.

        And as for creating our own numbers, again, it would be a great teachable moment where we might all agree to stop screwing with data. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

        • -B- says:

          How do you make your determination that I do not understand UHI? I’ve understood UHI since I was 10 years old and found it much colder on summer evening ten feet into the undeveloped land a block and half from my parents’ house. Yet at different times under different weather conditions there would be no drop at all.

          Each and every station would need to be looked at to see where it is and what’s around it over time. Then measurements taken near and far away from the station under different weather conditions to determine the proper correction for each and every station for every day in the record. It will still be imperfect but at least it won’t be the garbage the establishment is doing. It is what needs to be done if you want to have any chance at all to be accurate instead of essentially pulling a number out of your ass like the establishment climate “scientists” do.

          Sure you could come up with a model and use nearby stations to produce a correction but you don’t know how much UHI those stations have either. You’ll be doing what the establishment does. You’ll just have your own correction model and it will be just as much bullshit as theirs.

          And because you’ll being do what the establishment does they’ll know exactly how to use it to discredit anyone who opposes them. Your good for the goose good for the gander approach assumes they are stupid rather than fraudsters. They know exactly what they are doing mathematically and even if they are stupid enough to believe their own lies they’ll still make sure that any use of the same techniques against them but with the opposite result discredit their opposition.

          • Gator says:

            I’ve understood UHI since I was 10 years old and found it much colder on summer evening ten feet into the undeveloped land a block and half from my parents’ house.

            Then you understand that even the temperature of the undeveloped land is also higher than it would be were there not infrastructure nearby.

            You’ll just have your own correction model and it will be just as much bullshit as theirs. And because you’ll being do what the establishment does they’ll know exactly how to use it to discredit anyone who opposes them.

            Sooo close! Not sure how you missed it, but try again!

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        It takes only 60 people per square kilometre to raise the average temperature by one degree Celcius.

        The Global Average Urban Heat Island Effect in 2000 Estimated from Station Temperatures and Population Density Data

        You can do the math yourself of the average population density of the US with time.

        The key graph of the study is this one.

  8. Jay says:

    What is the counter argument to all of this? Surely some adjustments are legit?

    • tonyheller says:

      There is no excuse for making up fake data.

      • Patrick says:

        Why would Mann or Hansen care? Faking the scientific data isn’t a federal offense any more unless those in charge of indicting people feel the need to do so.

    • -B- says:

      The only counter argument I’ve seen boils down to ‘they are the experts’. The reasoning behind the adjustments amounts to opinion. And nothing justifies presenting the result of their opinionated data analysis as measurements. They aren’t measurements.

      In a data set this large errors are going to cancel themselves out. The measurements should be used as is without a very compelling case not to. The most compelling case for adjustment is UHI but that has to be done by studying each station individually and the change in its surroundings over time. Which of course is not done so we don’t know how much warming is from the urban heat island effect. Over the entire data set it may not amount to much anyway, but for individual stations can be rather dramatic. I wouldn’t expect unbiased study into UHI anytime soon.

    • Anon says:

      As a scientist, I might be willing to accept that one data set has a problem. But all of them beggars belief. And that all of them are adjust upward, to conform with each other, is another statistical puzzle. Interestingly, with all of these errors, they seem to never make a mistake in the other direction. The other explanation is that you have one of the most incompetent group of scientists involved in this field. And if you accept the later explanation, one might then ask how this group is trusted with anything, never mind their advocacy to completely change the world’s energy supply?

      If you are trying to really figure out what is going on, I suggest that you compare and contrast these two articles:

      Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
      Richard S. Lindzen – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA


      The Sugar Conspiracy

      In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?


      All of the same elements are in play: critical skeptics, unjust persecutions, ruined reputations and careers, corruption of scientific institutions, corruption of grant funding institutions, corruption of peer review, glib congressional investigations and a guileless, scientifically ill-educated and dependent public reliant on appeals to scientific authority to make medical decisions. .

  9. sol says:

    So is there ANY data we can still download and analyze ourselves that is still relevant?

    • tonyheller says:

      The raw data is online. They are doing this tampering quite openly.

    • DCA says:

      At the moment, Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent appears to be unadjusted, since it shows no trend.

    • Disillusioned says:


      Look at the top of this page. In black, you’ll see UNHIDING THE DECLINE. Choose your format. Click. Watch the video. Follow the directions.

    • sol says:

      I’ll pull it all and play with it. I’d thought to try working with it in compiled Labview (‘app builder’) – which is good at handling large multidimensional arrays (day/month/year/site; am I missing anything?) – for fun, and see what kind of processing speed I can get. My initial question was kind of to determine whether I should choose USHCN or GHCN first, and I should have phrased it better.

  10. AZ1971 says:


    Where is the source for all of those ‘E’ readings you’re tabulating to 61%?

  11. Robertv says:

    Climate change continues to present problems for New Jersey’s aging infrastructure. The state was pummeled with more precipitation in 2018 than in any other year since record keeping began in 1895.


  12. Patrick says:

    What’s the avenue of exposure during the Trump Administration? It’s not like this is the #1 website for forwarding liberal policies. DEEP STATE scientists will continue on their own path of least resistance and will continue to have our U.S. Government behind them no matter who is in office. They will also continue to post as representatives of “NOAA” and/or “NASA”, which simply means that Trump himself is backing their claims. Dummy Craps seem to be a high % of government employment. 3,000,000+ employees? White House Administration officials will continue to undermine U.S. citizen’s “right-to-know”, because we simply can’t fire them.

  13. Patrick says:

    Why would Mann or Hansen care? Faking the scientific data isn’t a federal offense any more unless those in charge of indicting people feel the need to do so.

  14. tom0mason says:

    I note that Hawaii has reported having snow!

    From http://strangesounds.org/2019/02/not-your-typical-maui-weather-first-time-snow-falls-in-a-hawaii-state-park-on-feb-9-2019.html
    Titled Not your typical Maui weather: First time snow falls in a Hawaii State Park on Feb. 9, 2019

    The Hawai‘i DLNR Division of State Parks reports that for perhaps the first time ever, snow has fallen in a Hawai‘i State Park on Saturday, Feb. 9, 2019. Polipoli State Park on Maui is blanketed with snow. It could also be the lowest elevation snow ever recorded in the state. Polipoli is at 6200 feet elevation.

    • ClimateYogi says:

      Snow in Hawaii is not unusual at the higher elevations . It may be a first for that area of Maui however snow at that level on the Big Island happens now and then . The real story is the winds from that storm . Mauna Kea had sustained winds of 130mph with gusts to over 190mph . Our area near Honokaa suffered major damage from wind to our electrical grid . And the wind was from the opposite direction than our normal trade winds . And it was cold wind !

      Here is a photo from the back porch in February 2002 .

  15. Hi Tony- What are your thoughts on the topic of chemtrails, geoengineering, solar radiation management, Haarp, heavy metals being sprayed in the sky, etc. Have you done any researh on these topics? Do you beleive this impacts weather and /or climate change? Has there been any dialogue that you know of between climate scientists/academics such as yourself talking about the relationship between real climate science and chemtrails/weather control programs.

    Thank you for your brilliant work and all that you do keep truth and sanity alive!

    Rebecca Bronson

  16. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Tony:

    Please clarify what the “0” represents in these climate temperature graphs?
    Also, what is considered to be the adverage global temperature of 2018, 2917, 2916?
    I am finding it difficult to find the answer to these questions.
    Thank you so much in advance for answering

  17. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Tony:
    To clarify, what does the “0” represent in all these climate temperature graphs? What was the average global temperature in 2018,2017, and 2016?
    Thank you in advance for this information. I am finding it hard to get the answer to these.


  18. BG says:

    Tony, you said:

    “There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.”

    How do we get this message through to Pres Trump? I don’t send anything to his White House contact page because I don’t trust any of his staff.

    Has Barry Myers been appointed NOAA Administrator yet?

    Trump has delivered on all his promises (except his wall so far). He did promise to stop NASA publishing politicized science in relation to climate change. He said he wanted them to concentrate on what they did best – Space.. I see Gavin Schmidt still sticking it to Trump.

    Trump promised to drain the swamp. He hasn’t delivered on draining the NOAA and NASA-GISS swamps yet.

    You’ve surprised me with the current NOAA method of adjustment. They are now using climate models. They were all using an algorithm that truncated the 1850-1910, lowered the old and raised the recent temperatures. Including the UK Met Office. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology are still using this algorithm. They are not using models – yet.

  19. Cal Lawrence says:

    Your blog is 100% fake.

  20. Mohib says:

    Tony, I’m a little confused by something that was mentioned in post by Bob Tisdale over on WattsUpWithThat, a few years back, in the update at the bottom of this post:


    Based on what you’ve shown here, the most (all?) of the warming in the USHCN data is coming from data points created from models, rather than actual instrument readings.

    In the update in the above post, they show this graph comparing USCHN and USCRN (supposedly the gold standard of data).

    Bob writes:
    Something has been puzzling me and I don’t have a good answer for the reason behind it, yet. As Zeke pointed out in comments and also over at Lucia’s, *USCRN and USHCN data align nearly perfectly, as seen in this graph. That seems almost too perfect to me. Networks with such huge differences in inhomogeneity, equipment, siting, station continuity, etc. rarely match that well.*

    Note that there is an important disclosure missing from that NOAA graph, read on.

    Dr Roy Spencer shows in this post the difference from USHCN to USCRN:

    Spurious Warmth in NOAA’s USHCN from Comparison to USCRN

    The results for all seasons combined shows that the USHCN stations are definitely warmer than their “platinum standard” counterparts.

    Spencer doesn’t get a match between USHCN and USCRN, so why does the NOAA/NCDC plotter page?

    [read the rest at the link]
    Since the most (all?) of the warming USHCN is coming from model data and not instrument data, so the warming is not related to with which stations you use, where they are cited, etc., how can USCRN match USHCN (let alone so perfectly), leaving aside all the instrument/citing differences between USCRN and USHCN Bob talks about, and leaving aside USCRN data is supposedly free of adjustments, to begin within?

Leave a Reply to spike55 Cancel 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.