Understanding NOAA US Temperature Fraud

This is graph of US maximum temperatures published on their website. It shows a hockey stick of warming after 1976.

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

The actual measured thermometer data does not have the post-1976 hockey stick. There has been very little warming since 1976, perhaps one degree F.


The next graph compares the measured temperatures (blue) vs. the reported (red.) The measured temperatures show long term cooling, but the reported temperatures show warming.

This graph shows the difference between reported and measured temperatures. The post-1976 hockey stick becomes very apparent.

So how is NOAA tampering with the data to create this hockey stick?

Alarmists claim that it is due to Time of Observation Bias or changing station composition, but that isn’t what is going on. NOAA is simply making the data up.  Every month, a certain percentage of stations does not report, and are marked with an E (estimated.) The percentage of estimated (i.e. fake) data has skyrocketed from around 5% to almost 50% since 1976.

And here is the smoking gun.  Comparing the fake adjusted temperatures to the measured adjusted temperatures.  The measured adjusted temperatures show about one degree warming since 1976, but the fake temperatures show about three degrees warming. And almost half of the data is fake now.

The post-1976 hockey stick is created by manufacturing data, not adjusting data as alarmists claim.


Manipulating the US temperature data is very important to global warming scamsters, because the US has the vast majority of high quality long term data.  Much of the rest of the world has been very busy dealing with genocide and world wars for the past century. Maintaining temperature data was a low priority for people trying to keep from being killed by their government.


And then there is UHI.  Thirty years ago, Tom Karl and Phil Jones said that UHI was responsible for the entire warming trend  in the US.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Understanding NOAA US Temperature Fraud

  1. Steve Thiboutot says:

    Remember in high school chemistry labs, when you had 5 minutes left in class and you just couldn’t get the numbers to be what they “should have been”? What did we do?

    Apparently they remember and still do it.

  2. Bob Hoye says:

    The authoritarian and frenzied mob may reject the charts, but there is no way that the scans of original articles can be rejected.
    Outstanding research.

  3. Johansen says:

    This is exactly what investigative journalists are **supposed** to be doing, and many people have receive the Pulitzer Prize for doing a lot **less**. Furthermore, you have just done about $250,000 in legal discovery for someone. And lastly, this could be the base material for dozens of books and/or doctoral dissertations by students in many disciplines – not just earth science. I have yet to find another forum where so much information is packed into so little space

  4. DocSiders says:

    I find it paradoxical and amusing that the Alarmists cannot use the horrors of the 1930’s “dust bowl” as an example of what can happen in a hot climate.

    Warming actually did cause widespread devastation and misery. But since they erased that higher temperature decade and it wasn’t CO2 related they cannot. The dust bowl is absolutely never mentioned by the Alarmists.

  5. oldscout says:

    Tony, this is interesting. In previous posts you have shown that at least some of the difference between adjusted and measured temperatures is due to unnecessary adjustments ascribed to changes in time of observation and in latitude of the changing ensemble of reporting stations. Here you show that after adjustment of both data sets the difference between fabricated and measured temperatures shows a spurious rise.

    Many times you have published a graph showing the difference between measured and reported temperatures, similar to the third figure in this post. Does the difference between measured and reported temperatures as in the third figure reflect contributions from both the adjustments to measured temperatures and from insertion of estimated temperatures? I assume both factors contribute to the increase in reported temperatures, but I would appreciate clarification.

    In addition, do you have any rationale for why such an increase in unreported temperatures has occurred? Automated remote electronic monitoring of meteorological data has become cheap and easy, as the existence of Weather Underground demonstrates. Why can’t NOAA be as competent as a bunch of backyard enthusiasts? Even allowing for government incompetence, I find this unbelievable.

    • Anon says:

      /Why can’t NOAA be as competent as a bunch of backyard enthusiasts? Even allowing for government incompetence, I find this unbelievable./

      If you are interested in some background on that, I suggest this recent podcast:

      Anthony Watts joins the podcast for the first time as a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts, the publisher of the most-read climate website in the world – WattsUpWithThat.com – talks about his scientific journey from radio and TV meteorologist in California to one of the most prominent skeptics in the world of human-caused climate change. Anthony’s fame came with his research into the enormous flaws in the way global temperature is determined at weather stations around the world.


      Sad they are still using many of the flawed stations…

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey oldscout! “Even allowing for government incompetence, I find this unbelievable.”

      That level of incompetence truly is unbelievable. Why is it unbelievable? For one thing, if it were really incompetence, at least some of the time they would be making errors that reduce the warming trend. The fact that year after year they keep altering, re-altering, and re-re-altering data that is decades old, and continually increasing the warming trend when they do so, is strong evidence that the reason is not just incompetence. More importantly, many people, many of them with impeccable credentials have repeatedly pointed out their errors, but the errors are never corrected. Lastly, the adjustments seem to always align with the career enhancing, funding producing, status increasing outcomes that stroke their personal ego and academic pay checks.

      Put very simply, where do you draw the line and say, “this is not just error — this is systematized, organized, and self serving in a way that is most reasonably ascribed to purposeful human deceit.” Sorry, but the “f” word is the only thing that fits the long term facts. It’s fraud. That really is the only reasonable conclusion that fits their patterns of behavior.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **In addition, do you have any rationale for why such an increase in unreported temperatures has occurred? Automated remote electronic monitoring of meteorological data has become cheap and easy, as the existence of Weather Underground demonstrates. **
      About 30 years ago they started closing manned observing sites and installing automatic weather stations to save money on salaries. However, the automatics were not as reliable as expected and needed adjustment and repair. Personnel at manned stations could do some maintenance. So they started to close stations again. Some remote stations are contract so do not cover 24 hours. They want a global coverage – a station on each 5 x 5 deg grid (or whatever) so they fill in the grid points and missing data. It has got worse over the years.
      Tony has shown some of this. Go back to around the middle of March post where he discusses the “warmest February”. he shows the infilling there:

  6. rod says:

    Tony, someone suggested that you may find this post about fraudulent temperature data in Canada’s north to be helpful… the first comment is taken from the facebook post of a data analyst who had to fight to try and keep the data from being corrupted by placement of the sites too close to heat islands.

  7. NITZAKHON says:

    May I make a suggestion for a graph?

    X axis: Percent of stations not reporting (and where they substituted “estimates”)

    Y axis: Temperature rise

    I think the R^2 would be pretty high.

    You may also like this, the first of a series:


Leave a Reply

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