Corruption Of The US Temperature Record

The US temperature record is very important, because it is the only large area on the planet with a high quality long term daily temperature record.

Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/

Thirty years ago, NOAA reported that the US was not warming.

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

Twenty years ago, NASA’s James Hansen was upset that the US was cooling – even as CO2 increased.

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 cooling was disturbing to global warming theorists at both NASA and NOAA.  CO2 warming theory was failing, so they did the obvious thing – altered the data and  turned cooling into warming.

NASA 1999   NASA 2016

Via data tampering, NOAA now shows nearly continuous warming in the US since 1895.


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

The red line below shows the data which NOAA now releases to the public, and the blue line shows their actual thermometer data – which closely resembles the 1999 NASA graph.

The adjustments form a perfect hockey stick.

And the adjustments precisely match the increase in CO2. A smoking gun of confirmation bias and/or fraud.

The majority of the recent tampering is due to fake data. More than 40% of the current US adjusted data is generated by computer models rather than thermometers.


NOAA shows a large increase in afternoon temperatures since the 1930s..

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

By contrast, the thermometer data from the 1,218 NOAA US Historical Climatology Stations (USHCN) show a decrease in afternoon temepratures.

The percent of hot days has plummeted.

The two most often cited excuses for the data tampering, are a change in average latitude (changing station composition) –  and a change in the time when the min/max thermometers were reset (Time of Observation Bias.)  The argument behind TOBS adjustments is that most people in the 1930s reset their thermometers during the afternoon, causing double counting of hot days, making the 1930s data too hot.

It is simple enough to eliminate these effects by using a consistent set of long term stations which all reset their thermometers at the same time during the 1930s. This eliminates any need to correct the data.

Morning stations show approximately the same trend as the set of all stations.

Afternoon stations show approximately the same trend as the set of all stations.


What this analysis shows is that the adjustments are unsupportable.  TOBS and changing station composition effects are much smaller than the adjustments being made. The US is not warming, and the adjustments which make it appear to be warming are fraudulent.

Even worse is that the data is being altered with the vast majority of the public unaware. If NOAA has concerns about data quality, the correct way to handle it would be to put error bars on the graph – not alter the data to match their theory.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Corruption Of The US Temperature Record

  1. Petit_Barde says:

    After decades of research and hundreds of billions spent, the only area in which climate science has made great progress is the data tampering.

    • arn says:

      and in extracting more and more tax payers money.

      The rest is a little bit like the Russian Collusion or iraq’s WMD etc
      or the kavannaugh rapes.
      The whole group just parrots some agenda stuff 24/7 though everyone knows it is crap.
      As soon the lie can no longer survive they will ignore it and move on and replace it with a new lie that serves the same purpose.

      • GCSquared says:

        Agree. Raising electricity prices, and monetizing smog as a financial instrument, are the only sensible reasons I can see for the mass promotion.

        But I’m pretty sure not everyone believes it’s crap. I know plenty of true believers, private and public, who have swallowed the whole warming story uncritically.

        Remember William Casey, CIA director: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”? (Overheard by Barbara Honneger in 1981).

  2. “More than 40% of the current US adjusted data is generated by computer models rather than thermometers.” <<< looks like this should say "More than 50%".

  3. nannygovtsucks says:

    There used to be sources online for raw station temperature data. The sources I used in the past have disappeared. Can you direct me and others interested where that data are still available to extract and plot? PS. I’m not a programmer. Thanks.

  4. Tom Abbott says:

    Thanks for putting this post together, Tony. Everything we need to make a case against the data tampering.

    What does Dr. Happer have to say about this fraudulent behavior on the part of the Keepers of the Data?

  5. Denis Rushworth says:

    The Climate Reference Network temperature data may eventually put the lie to the tampering. CRS data cannot, in theory be adjusted. It has only been operating since 2005 and shows no rise so conclusion are not firm just yet. But in another 12 years, when we are all dead, the rest of nature will know.

    • arn says:

      In 12 years you all will be dead
      if AOC succeeds with “her” green new deal”.

      As this deal will 100% turn your country into a 3rd world shithole.
      In combination with the huge debts and wars and illegals
      and making it worse with reperations payments the democrats want
      it will get really ugly.

      I guess their plan is to cause this all the catastrophies they blames AGW

  6. Spiritus Mundi says:


    What does the data look like if you just plot the temperature recording marked “E” and those from actual thermometer data on separate graphs? And then compare this to the models. I would guess they are back filling the data to match their hypothesis to make the models look better. They may even use the same algorithm to back fill the data.

  7. Gator says:

    You cannot change data, but you can destroy it. Data is the information collected, any adjustments to that data destroys it, and replaces it with artifacts of analysis. There is no such thing as “adjusted data”.

    My old Webster’s Dictionary from 1916 defines data as simply “Factual material”.
    What grantologists generally call “data” are artifacts of analysis. For those who are unaware of what “artifacts” are, let me help you.

    ˈärdəfakt/Submit noun
    plural noun: artifacts
    1. an object made by a human being

    Data is collected, not manufactured.

  8. GCSquared says:

    Excellent job, Tony. I like that you took the alarmist explanations seriously enough to check them out and find them wanting. Ingenious.

  9. Brian D says:

    Still some truth out there.

  10. Mats Rosengren says:

    There are 1218 ushcn stations. How can one (you!) know which are “morning stations”?
    Is the criteria that all “raw” data are identical with “adjusted” data?
    It should be enough (and much better) to use only the stations for which only genuin data and no computed/estimated measurements are provided! Is that exactly what you did?

  11. Peter Clack says:

    When will the human world emerge from its obsession with groupthink and mass hysteria? There seems to be a giant flaw in the way brains function. They only operate at the start of any issue and then settle into a fixed mode. It is then impossible to dislodge the original fixed template in order for thinking to progress.

  12. David says:

    How can I obtain the US raw temperature data? I’ve asked the IPCC and others. No one answers – ever. Please help, I want to review the raw data – all of it.

  13. D. Patterson says:

    David, please note, the “raw data” terminology being widely used is actually a deceptive misnomer; because there are a number of steps between the time an observation site is selected and equipped with instrumentation to an individual observation and then to the input into the misnamed “raw” dataset where the steps cause the temperature value/s to be routinely or non-routinely adjusted in accordance with standard and non-standard operating procedures for weather observations. Adjustments to the “raw datasets” constitute adjustments to any and all undisclosed prior adjustments.

  14. Don Kress says:

    Our Libtard government here in Canada just slapped a carbon tax on energy in the province of Ontario, among others, despite the fact that our provincial Premier refused to go along with the federal dictate. Very shortly thereafter, within a day or so they started a barrage of media bullshit stating the “just released” (coincidentally enough) report on how bad climate change is for Canada. I would love to see a video dissecting this propaganda.
    Canada’s Changing Climate Report | Natural Resources Canada

  15. DocSiders says:


    Interesting approach and analysis. I hope you can get this paper published.


    What happens to the last 70 years of GAT values and GAT trends if the global area that was NOT represented (no stations) prior to 1950 are NOT included in the calculations of GAT from 1950 to the present?

    If the post 1950 “limited data” GAT and full data GAT values and trends differ significantly, then the GAT values derived prior to 1950 should be put into question.

  16. sam melvin says:

    Analyses of the Effects of global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems printed 2008 .U S. Climate Change Science Program 1717 Pennsylvania ave.NW suite 250 Washington D C 2006.Now order your copy.taxpayers money..

Leave a Reply to Denis Rushworth Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *