Another Wildly Fraudulent Data Set From NOAA

NOAA claims that the area of the US with unusually hot summer afternoon temperatures is increasing to record highs.

Natural Disasters – Our World in Data


It actually has been decreasing to record lows.

The National Climate Assessment shows the same thing as my graphs  Peak summer temperatures in most of the US have declined sharply over the last 60 years.

Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

More than 50% of the NOAA adjusted data is now fabricated. It is all a complete farce.

The adjusted data is no longer even remotely credible. They turn a strong 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Another Wildly Fraudulent Data Set From NOAA

  1. Archie says:

    Tony, can you clarify something? You show a lot of temperature graphs showing reductions in days over a certain temperature but what is the average (hi/low) temperature doing in the US? If we aren’t’ getting as low or as high as before, is the average going up or down?

    • DCA says:


      The second graph here might help answer your question:

      But beware of averages. As the saying goes, “the average person has one breast and one testicle.”

      • AlJones1816 says:

        Tony doesn’t ever seem to provide information on how he computes these kinds of averages. How does he account for changes to the station network through time? Does he use any form of spatial weighting?

        For example, how would he address a question like this: Is it actually true that the 30s had that high a T-Max, or were there simply more stations in hotter areas in the 30s than there are today (is it a combination of both?)? The latter scenario(s) seems to me totally plausible, and it should at least be addressed.

        • Gator says:

          There were more stations. Now over half of all “data” is simply made up. Add to that the fact that stations that were removed were primarily at higher latitudes and higher altitudes, and you reverse a cooling trend to a warming trend.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            Do you have some sources on the higher altitudes/latitudes statement? How is Tony dealing with this in his processing? These kinds of network changes are exactly the kinds of things I’m concerned that Tony isn’t handling adequately in his analyses, but I can’t find him documenting anywhere exactly how he does handle them, if at all.

          • Gator says:

            GHCN fraud that eliminated cooler stations…


            So how concerned are you about UHI, and how grantologists are handling that?

            The term “heat island” describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C). Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water pollution.


            And MMTS problems?

            Differing daily measured values from the old and new sensors for temperature measurement spurred the author [Hager] to conduct a comparison spanning from January 1, 1999 to July 31, 2006 at Fliegerhorst Lechfeld (WMO 10856) 8-1/2 years long, daily without interruption, among other comparison tests of mercury maximum glass thermometers in a Stevenson screen and a Pt 100 resistance thermometer inside an aluminum enclosure, both unventilated. The 3144 days yielded a mean difference of +0.93°C; the Pt 100 was higher than the mercury thermometer. The maximum daily difference even reached 6.4°C!


          • AlJones says:


            Thanks for the video link. It is very hard to tell how the latitudinal distribution of stations in the US changed over time from the video. It is impossible to tell how the altitudinal distribution of stations changed.

            I agree that urbanization bias is an issue, and I agree that instrumentation changes absolutely have to be dealt with when working station data. That is why I’m asking Tony to elaborate on exactly how he is dealing with these kinds of issues in his analyses. My impression is that he is not dealing with them at all, so it would be good to get some reassurance that I’m wrong on that point.

          • Gator says:

            By not tampering with the data, Tony gives us the most honest approach. UHI is the largest issue by far, and is something the alarmists virtually ignore while they fiddle with the numbers. Everyone knows that cities are getting hotter.

            Data is what it is. Let it speak for itself.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            If urbanization produces the largest bias in the surface temperature records, why would you advocate simply ignoring its present in the network?

            But I think one of the larger issues in this case is how one is dealing with an uneven and changing network composition. If you’re taking simple unweighted averages of all stations and some areas have a higher concentration of stations than others (very clearly seen in the video you showed me earlier) you’re biasing the average to those high concentration areas. If the composition of the network changes you’ll be introducing spurious trends. You wouldn’t be merely “letting the data speak for themselves,” you would be creating signals that have nothing to do with the climate. I think this is a critical point to address so it would be good to hear from Tony how he’s dealing with it.

          • Gator says:

            Again, the overriding issue is UHI. Virtually all stations suffer from this to one degree or another.

            Does your local weatherman alter his data? No. Why? Because it is unnecessary, and creates even more issues.

            Present the data, explain the UHI issue, and move on. Anything else is just opinion and bias.

          • Gator says:

            I almost missed your comment on signals.

            You wouldn’t be merely “letting the data speak for themselves,” you would be creating signals that have nothing to do with the climate.

            This is not possible. Climate is the accumulation of weather over time. The raw data would most definitely be part of the climate signal, you cannot (unless you are paid huge amounts of grant money) create fake temperatures and expect to have an accurate portrayal of our climate. Local climates include such things as UHI which deserves note, but station moves and TOBS are man made (non)issues that are simply excuses for data tampering.

            It is important to understand that there is no such thing as an average global temperature. Beware the law of averages!

          • AlJones1816 says:

            “Does your local weatherman alter his data? No. Why? Because it is unnecessary, and creates even more issues.”

            My local weatherman doesn’t remove UHI because he is giving my my local weather, and UHI is a part of that. I will live in and experience UHI. However, someone 20 miles from the city center might not experience it at all. So if I want to take a station located in or near the city and say, “this station is representative of an area around the city with a 20 mile radius,” (which I have to do if I want to combine bunches of stations into a network) – in reality the radius needs to be much bigger – I need to account for UHI.

            Isn’t that the whole issue, after all? Weather stations were intended to give people their local weather, so no thought was given to keeping them safe from urbanization. But now we need to use them to monitor regional climate changes, so they need to represent a much broader area, and now urbanization is a problem.

            It just doesn’t jive with me that you can both acknowledge that UHI is a significant issue that imparts bias while simultaneously insisting that we shouldn’t even try to do anything about it. If I have a tape measure that I know has an extra centimeter added to every meter, should I just leave my measurements pure and untouched? Or should I report my measurements with the known error removed while documenting my process?

          • Gator says:

            Al, data is what it is. Once it has been altered, it is no longer data, and becomes an artifact of analysis or basically somebody’s opinion. What we need to do is use properly sited stations with correct instrumentation, and leave the data alone. Nobody knows what the exact “corrections” are, so when we “correct” data, we are only altering it and hoping that we are right.

            Publish the data with footnotes, and if you like, graph your artistic impression of what you believe is the correct interpretation.But don’t dare call it data, and don’t tell me that you have all the answers.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            I think we would all love to have a properly sited network with no instrumentation issues and no changes in the station network over time, but that’s not what we have. Nobody 100 years ago imagined they’d need to combine all the US weather station data into the nationwide networks, but now we have that need and we have to work within the constraints of the data that we have. NOAA set up the Climate Reference Network so that in 50 years we’ll have that pristine station network we’d like so badly to have, but it will never help us with the last century.
            But that said, I simply disagree very strongly that we should ignore actual known issues in the data just because we might later discover that our methodology is flawed. We should be making every effort to clean up and improve the data that we have. In my tape measure analogy, I’m not going to go around telling everyone that I’m 187 cm tall when I know that my tape measure has an error in it. I’m going to try and assess the error and remove it from my height estimate. I agree that if I’m not acknowledging the existence of the error, or not documenting my attempts to correct it, I’m doing it badly.

          • Gator says:

            Al, what you describe is not “data”. Period.

            I have no issues with artistic impressions of our climate, but let’s be clear about what we are doing. We are not making data “cleaner” or “improving” it when we alter it.

            Tony has proven that TOBS is simply BS. And station moves cancel any long term data. It’s fine if you believe that the alterations are somehow enhancing our understanding, but you cannot say with any certainty that it is. This is one reason why I loathe data tampering, as it only reflects the beliefs of the tamperer.

            The only known issue of any consequence regarding some of our temperature data is UHI, and we cannot even agree on that adjustment.

            If you prefer fake numbers, that is your choice. I prefer real numbers, numbers that don’t have the putrid smell of bias.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            I think we kind of have to agree to disagree on this point. I don’t know how we could come to see eye to eye on it. I think known errors should be accounted for, you think the data should be fiddled with as little as possible. I think it doesn’t matter very much on a global scale, since the overall effect of the adjustments is very small (and actually serves to reduce warming), so hypothetically you could do pretty well just using the raw data.

            The larger issue I think here is how the data are actually being averaged together. Tony would have to address exactly how he’s weighting the station data to resolve it.

          • Gator says:

            I think known errors should be accounted for…

            What “known” errors? You still don’t seem to understand that adjustments are WAG’s.

            I think it doesn’t matter very much on a global scale, since the overall effect of the adjustments is very small…

            So creating a warming trend out of thin air (pun intended) is a very small effect?

            (and actually serves to reduce warming WTF? The adjustments created the warming.

            The larger issue I think here is how the data are actually being averaged together.

            There is no such thing as an average number. It is a human construct. The average human has 1 breast and 1 testicle.

            Again, play with the numbers all you like, but in the end all you do is show your bias.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            The below article by Zeke Hausfather shows that the global land+surface adjusted data show a smaller trend than the unadjusted data. For land only, the adjustments serve to increase the warming trend, but only very slightly. The adjustments have a big impact on the trends in the contiguous US, but the CONUS is just 6% of the earth’s total land surface, and like less than 3% of the total (land+ocean) surface area.

            So again, we could hypothetically just use the raw data for the globe as a whole.

            My larger question for this analysis is whether or not Tony is accounting for changes in the composition of the station network through time. If he’s not accounting for changes in station distribution it is going to give a false picture of “% over 95 days.” Just imagine if a bunch of stations in a really hot area all went offline around 1950 – it would look like a sudden gigantic drop in the % days above 95 unless you do some sort of spatial weighting. But the drop wouldn’t reflect any climate signal – it would only reflect the station network changing.


          • Gator says:

            Zeke is a bad joke and a liar. Why would any sane human quote him?

            Do me a favor Al, ask Zeke how much they adjust for UHI.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            So you’re saying the graph he put together of raw vs. adjusted is incorrect? Would you mind please showing me one that is correct then? I’m afraid I don’t simply take your word on it that he’s a liar, the work seems fine to me. Zeke and several other researchers at Berkeley Earth put together a similar plot using their record here and it seems totally consistent, posted here on Judith Curry’s site:


          • Gator says:

            So you are saying that you don’t know what his UHI adjust might be.

            Boy you really have boned up on this. Do tell! LOL

            Come back when you know of what you speak. We don’t need any more parroting trolls here.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            In the first link I provided, Hausfather is using NOAA data, which have already been adjusted to account for urbanization. I believe they’re following the methods laid out in Menne et al. 2009:


            I am not sure if Berkeley Earth does anything differently for their UHI adjustments. But again, just assuring someone is a “bad joke and a liar” is not really a scientific argument. Do you actually have a source you can provide on this? It seems like you’re saying the folks at Berkeley Earth are outright lying about the difference between raw and adjusted global data, and such an allegation should be accompanied by evidence.

            Accusing me of trolling when I haven’t done anything remotely inflammatory and have been respectful and thoughtful seems uncalled for.

          • Gator says:

            Al, what is the UHI adjustment?

            Still waiting. Once you come up with that, we can address the “bad joke” and “liar” in detail.

            I have dealt with Zeke Horsefeathers for years now, and he is a fraud. I am more familiar with his work than you are. Stop the sill copy and pasting and answer my question.

            What is the UHI adjustment?

          • Gator says:

            Accusing me of trolling when I haven’t done anything remotely inflammatory and have been respectful and thoughtful seems uncalled for.

            Al, it is disrespectful to ignore facts when they are served up to you on a platter. To be thoughtful, you must be willing to think and change your mind, and not just copy and paste BS ad nauseam.

            There are all kinds of trolls. Not all are combative. Many are like you, and they pretend to be neutral but in the end show their bias and reason for trolling a site. You are not here to learn, you are here to argue. Troll.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            Gator, the pairwise homogenization algorithm NOAA uses to correct urbanization bias is described in detail in Menne et al. Please see that paper for reference, I needn’t paraphrase the entire thing here.

            It sounds like you have personal issues with Zeke. I do not know him and I do not know you, I certainly do not know the history between you. If you want me to think that he is a bad actor and a liar you will have to supply evidence. But beyond that I would much rather you focus on the simple thing that I gave to you, which was a graph showing that the adjustments to the global surface temperature record are small, and that we could use the raw data if we wanted to. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see that. Hausfather could be the biggest liar lyingpants in the world and he and the folks at Berkeley Earth could still have made a perfectly fine graph. Ad hominem is not a scientific argument.

          • Gator says:

            Still avoiding the truth?

            I needn’t paraphrase the entire thing here

            No, you needn’t. Just tell folks what the UHI adjustment is. Simple. Right?

            So why all the copying and pasting, hand waving, and avoidance of my very, very basic question?

            What is the UHI adjustment?

          • neal s says:

            Aljones had complained about station composition and not knowing what Tony had done about that.

            Please read Tony’s prior post that addresses this

            Tony wrote …
            “Again, it is simple enough to test this theory out, by using only the 896 stations which were active in both 1918 and 2018.”

        • AlJones1816 says:

          Gator, the homogenization step adjusts for UHI, I don’t think NOAA does anything else to account for it. You can see the effect of homogenization in the article on Judith Curry’s blog I linked to earlier. I am not sure what else it is that you’re looking for.

          • Gator says:

            So you accept adjustments that you cannot explain, and for which you have absolutely no measurement.

            Keep the faith brother!

            I’ll stick with facts, logic, and the science.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            I can explain the homogenization steps, I do not see what benefit that would offer our present discussion that simply linking to the publication itself would not. Again, the whole gist is that at a global scale I think you can do all right just using the raw data.

            The question I have about Tony’s approach is not about whether he is using raw or adjusted data but about how he is averaging the raw data together. I think that is a bigger issue here.

          • Gator says:

            So homogenizing UHI is acceptable. Interesting and obtuse.

          • AlJones1816 says:


            do you not agree that homogenization is acceptable? Do you have a better approach in mind for dealing with urbanization bias?

            And, again, my issue is not with raw vs. adjusted data, but in the way the data are being aggregated. I think there are significant questions about Tony’s approach that need to be addressed.

          • spike55 says:

            “Gator, the homogenization step adjusts for UHI”

            No, exactly the opposite.

            They USE the urbanisation bias to introduce warming to places that never had any.

            Urban sites take up some 1-2% of the country, but are smeared over vast country regions using the very method that was invented to do this.

          • Gator says:

            No Al, smearing UHI across the countryside is not acceptable, in fact it is fraud. Why in Hell would you want to include a signal that you are not trying to detect? Maybe to inflate numbers to match a failed hypothesis? UHI is a local, and not a global phenomenon.

            Are you really as stupid as you pretend?

            Now, what is the UHI adjustment? Or are you admitting that they do not even try to adjust for UHI, like they do for TOBS and station moves?

            I’ve parsed through all the homogenization and extrapolation BS, and it is part of what turned me into a hard nosed skeptic. I spent years in the Earth Sciences department of a major university studying geology, geography, cartography, and climatology. I’ve read each study as it is made public, and my skepticism grows with each paper.

            the process of making things uniform or similar.

            It’s right there in the name, making other stations similar to UHI corrupted stations. How corrupt? A paper from the Journal of Geophysical Research found major issues, that homogenization would only make worse.

            Station siting scores, and explanation.

            CRN Rating:
            CRN1-2, 7.9%
            CRN3-5, 92.1%

            1 Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19°). Grass/low vegetation ground cover 3 degrees.

            2 Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5°.

            3 (error 1°C) ‐ Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

            4 (error ≥2°C) ‐ Artificial heating sources <10 meters

            5 (error ≥5°C) ‐ Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface

            So 92% of stations have UHI issues from 1c to over 5c, and you think smearing this corruption across the countryside is acceptable. Don’t be a dumbass (or worse) like Zeke.

            Innumerable studies have shown that UHI is a massive signal. The EPA has this to say…

            The term “heat island” describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C).


            Your homogenization doesn’t look like such a great idea.

            So what was that UHI adjustment again? LOL

          • Gator says:

            And thank you for making me laugh when you suggested that Tony’s approach needs questioning, right after you stated that smearing UHI across the globe is great.

            You loonies are a hoot! If only you could hear yourselves. LOL

          • AlJones1816 says:


            I do not understand how you can so adamantly insist that UHI is a huge issue while simultaneously saying that Tony’s apparent approach of not addressing it is ideal. I think it is great for people to be critical of and to question the current approaches to accounting for it, but those people need to be proposing better solutions for it, otherwise the criticism is unhelpful. Clearly we do need to address urbanization bias, and an imperfect approach is better than no approach.

            But this said, I think you are misstating how the pairwise homogenization algorithm works. All it does is to detect stations which have breakpoints (either jump-steps or gradual departures) from their neighboring stations, and if such a breakpoint is found they bring the outlying station’s trend in line with that of its neighbors. The idea behind this adjustment is that we want to remove effects that are isolated to a single station as much as possible. This approach will only “smear” urban bias in cases where a rural station is surrounded by urban stations, but when such edge cases are averaged into the majority of cases where homogenization reduces urban bias, the net effect will be to reduce bias overall.

          • Gator says:

            Al, you clearly have not spent enough time actually studying the UHI and homogenization issue, you simply talking the word of others uncritically.

            A paper just published inTheoretical and Applied Climatologyfinds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.


            Your impression of “rural” stations is that they suffer no UHI, but as shown in my previous comment, over 92% of stations show 1C or more warming from UHI. In fact, over 92% of stations have more warming from UHI than the alleged warming from man made CO2.

            What is the UHI adjustment?

          • Gator says:

            I do not understand how you can so adamantly insist that UHI is a huge issue while simultaneously saying that Tony’s apparent approach of not addressing it is ideal.

            I never said that any method is ideal. What I said is that I prefer actual data to fake data. At least Tony’s method is honest, and doesn’t employ mathturbation to fool the ignorant into believing a doomer fantasy.

          • AlJones1816 says:

            Gator, the authors of that study use a homogenization technique that does not respond to gradual inhomogeneities, but responds to large step-breaks. Indeed this was by design, since if they used the type of homogenization that NOAA uses they would have removed the urbanization effect, which is what they wanted to study. I do not think this paper helps your case at all, and rather seems to undermine it.

            My impression of rural station is not necessarily that they have no urbanization bias, but that the homogenization process minimizes urbanization bias in the network. Saying that Tony’s method is “honest” is not saying that Tony’s method is adequately addressing a known issue in the data.

          • Gator says:

            Sorry Al, but it isn’t just a Chinese problem.


            Once again.

            What is the UHI adjustment?

          • Gator@ says:

            When over 92% of stations show more UHI warming than the alleged man made CO2 warming, homogenization does not remove the UHI signal, it employs it.

            Common sense tells us this, no mathturbating needed.

            What is the UHI adjustment?

          • AlJones1816 says:


            claiming that a lot of stations have urbanization bias is not the same thing as showing that urbanization bias is not accounted for during homogenization.

            Regarding your Climate Audit link, McIntyre merely says, “Working through the homogenization algorithms is not a small job and, unfortunately, it’s one of many issues that I haven’t pursued.” He does not show that homogenization is not doing its job.

            Again, it’s great to be critical of these kinds of processes, but it is unhelpful if the criticism isn’t accompanied by suggestions for improvement. You and I both fully agree that urbanization bias is a real issue, so clearly it is something that should be addressed, and ignoring its presence in the data does not seem like the right approach.

            And yet again, we seem to be having trouble staying to the path of discussion I brought up originally, which has never been addressed. The issue is that Tony has not let us know how, or if, he is dealing with spatial weighting. We know that the composition of the station network is not constant, s we know that any approach to averaging must account for such changes. But Tony has not shared his approach with us. I am concerned that his results are not robust because he is not doing anything at all to account for changes to the station network.

          • Gator says:

            Yes Al we are having trouble staying on the path. I originally asked you what the UHI adjustment is, and you have never answered. All you have done is point to the work of others, work you cannot explain, because you do not understand it.

            Macintyre was just one more example of many experts who have shown what any reasonable person knows already. If you do not remove UHI, you employ it.

            What is the UHI adjustment.

          • neal s says:

            AlJones … These two posts may be informative

            Tony compares all USHCN stations and the stations which were active in both 1917 and 2016



            Tony wrote …
            “Again, it is simple enough to test this theory out, by using only the 896 stations which were active in both 1918 and 2018.”

          • AlJones1816 says:

            thanks for these links. I have questions about the approach Tony is taking here, as well, and I do not see these questions answered in the comments.

            In the first link, why is Tony subsetting the data to stations active between 1917 and 2016? What is the rationale for that period? Why not active in both, say, 1915 and 2016? Or 1900 and 2016? It seems to be cutting off an awful lot of data this way. Additionally, what kind of spatial weighting is Tony doing to account for the fact that the distribution of stations is not even? This seems particularly important if you are looking at counts of days, because if you have more stations in a hot area of the country your counts will be higher. What is Tony doing to account fo rthe fact that even active stations don’t report continuously? This will introduce substantial changes in the station network without permanently taking any stations offline. Why is the specific metric being examined % of days over 95? This seems to be limiting the already limited subset to that set of stations that see days over 95 regularly.

            In the second link, some of the same questions still apply – why start in 1918? Why daily max temperature? How is Tony accounting for stations active in 1918 and 2018, but only active reporting for a fraction of that time? And there are some new ones: Why is the definition of a “morning station” a station that measured in the morning in the year 1936? Why isn’t it a station thato nly measured in the mornings across all years of its in-service time? The same question for afternoon stations.

            Thanks in advance for addressing these questions. I wish that Tony would provide more information about his approach up front. That is precisely the issue I have with this most recent post.

          • Gator says:

            It’s amazing how curious Al is about Tony’s methodology, and yet how incurious Al is about what exactly homogenization does.

            So again Al, what is the UHI adjustment?

            Or are you one of these?

            con·cern troll
            noun a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion./i>

            UHI adjustment?

          • AlJones1816 says:


            I encourage you to read Menne et al. 2009, which I cited for you earlier, because it goes into much greater detail than I can on a blog comment.

            The pairwise homogenization algorithm used by NOAA and Berkeley Earth takes each station in the network, computes a differences series between the station and its nearest neighbors, and identifies breakpoints (which can either be stepwise or gradual). When a breakpoint can be identified at a station and its magnitude can be reliably estimated, the algorithm adjusts the break to bring the station more in line with its neighbors.

            You keep trying to challenge me on this topic, as though you think I do not understand the algorithm, but I do not understand why. It does not get us anywhere. If you think I am missing some critical component, explain to me what it is. You do not need to be snarky or combative, we are all trying to understand better.

          • Gator says:

            Al, I’ve read the Menne et al paper. It doesn’t tell me what the UHI adjustment is. I have asked many alarmists to give me a number, and they cannot. This means they do not know. Their algorithms are a mystery, even to them.

            The reason I am a skeptic is because I have read the papers Al. And they do not answer key questions. Why do you alarmist trolls automatically assume skeptics have not read all the available science. As skeptics we want answers. We seek them out. It is you believers who uncritically accept what you are told by those with similar world views.

            So show me I’m wrong Al.

            What is the UHI adjustment Al?

            Why not just admit that you do not know, and therefore can only say that you trust a method that employs UHI.

            Or you could continue with your concern troll act…

          • AlJones1816 says:

            Gator, the UHI adjustment is not separate from the rest of the pairwise homogenization algorithm. Breakpoints resulting from urbanization are not differentiated from any other breakpoints. In fact the whole point is that the algorithm should automatically identify and correct such breakpoints without an analyst having to manually check every single record. I’m not sure how you would go about extracting the exact adjustment for urbanization out of the homogenized series. I think the best approach would be to look to see whether the adjustments make stations nearby CRN stations closer to or further from the trend at the CRN stations, as Hausfather et al. 2016 did:


            Again, for the globe as a whole, the effect of the adjustments is very small, so if you would prefer to use only the raw data, I’m happy to do that, as long as we are both acknowledging the potential issues involved in doing so.

            The question at hand is how Tony is aggregating the raw data, not necessarily how, or whether, he is adjusting the raw data. I am concerned that his averaging technique is injecting substantial biases into the raw data and would like him to discuss how he is addressing that possibility.

          • Gator says:

            Al, it’s cute that you take the word of those who cannot explain their own methodology.

            Q: If you do not know what the UHI adjustment is, how can you possibly know that your method is working?

            A: You cannot.

            So once again, what is the UHI adjustment?

            (More hand waving will not be accepted)

          • Gator says:

            I am concerned that his averaging technique is injecting substantial biases into the raw data…

            Awwww, the concern troll is concerned about Tony injecting biases, but the concern troll has zeroconcern over the many issues I have shown it in this thread. How could such a concerned concern troll be so very unconcerned about things that should concern it? LOL

            The concern troll loves fake temperatures, fake concern, fake arguments, fake excuses, and fake science.

            Figured out the UHI adjustment yet?

          • AlJones1816 says:


            I’ve explained the adjustment to you pretty clearly. I cannot help you if you are still unable to follow along, I can only again suggest that you do some more reading to improve your understanding. I’m happy to provide you with some additional sources.

            I’ll look forward to discussing the issues I’ve raised if and when you feel ready or able to stay on topic.

          • Gator says:

            I’ve explained the adjustment to you pretty clearly.

            No Al, you have not explained the adjustment.

            I cannot help you if you are still unable to follow along, I can only again suggest that you do some more reading to improve your understanding. I’m happy to provide you with some additional sources.

            Al, I was a climatology student right after the global cooling scare, and just before the great global warming swindle began. Not only have I read the papers you keep mouthing about, but I also understand them, as this was part of my field of study.

            I’ll look forward to discussing the issues I’ve raised if and when you feel ready or able to stay on topic.

            The topic is whether or not the homogenized numbers (not data) are acceptable of not, and they are not because there is no way to quantify the adjustments, and no way that employing UHI in the numbers is anything close to removing the signal.

            If you cannot tell me what the UHI adjustment is, you cannot possibly know if their method is working. Stop the weasel nonsense Al. Do you know how very stupid you sound right now?

            What is the UHI adjustment?

            If you do not know, be a man for the first time today, and say so. I already told you I will not accept any more childish hand waving.

          • AlJones1816 says:


            I have explained the adjustment. If you are not following along it is not for my lack of explaining but for your lack of understanding. I am not trying to insult you, I am trying to encourage you to learn. The fact that you have done studies in the field does not mean you are done learning. I hold an advanced degree in climate sciences and do not think I know half of a tenth of a percent of what there is to be known in my own specialization alone, much less about areas far outside it.

          • Gator says:

            Again Al, you have explained nothing. If you cannot tell me how much UHI is removed by the homogenization, then you do not know what that method is actually doing.

            So I ask again.

            What is the UHI adjustment Al?

            Quit waving you hands and dithering you alarmist fool troll! LOL

  2. Aussie says:

    Notice how the NOAA fabrication ends in 2015…

    So they have more in store for when they get to 2019?

    These guys plus the BOM here in Australia are out of control. What sort of scientist would sign off on such an obvious fraud? In any private organisation they would be terminated, but here there must be complicity right to the top of the organisation

    People on blog and article comments joke about skeptics and conspiracy theories, but quite frankly when you see this what else can you think of??

    • neal s says:

      The NOAA fabrication does not end in 2015. But the first graph (not from Tony) is showing a 9 year average and so could not show that average beyond 2015.

      I may agree that it would have been nice had the non-time-averaged values been shown up to the time the graph was created, even if the 9 year average blue line had to stop in 2015.

  3. Jack Hilgen says:

    “What sort of scientist would sign off on such an obvious fraud?”

    The answer is clear: There is no fraud. Tony is publishing unreviewed data on a personal website.

    It’s just the internet. Not peer-reviewed science.

    • tonyheller says:

      I am reviewing other people’s junk science and fraud, and wondering why other reviewers are remaining silent. If you were intellectually honest, you would do the same.

    • Gator says:

      Jack, why would data need review? And just who are the reviewers? Do the reviewers make any money off of their work? If climate change turned out to be natural and beneficial, how many of these data reviewers would be out of work? And how many politicians would lose power?

      Data is data only once Jack, when it is collected. Once data has been altered it is no longer data, but only an artifact of analysis and only someone’s opinion.

      Post modern science has really built you a large woolen cap, with no eye holes.

    • Joel says:


      “Peer-reviewed” status is not the test of Truth.

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        But it beats blogosphere science!

        If you were sick with cancer, would you go to a doctor who is trained to treat you or an internet blogger who writes about cancer science?

        • arn says:

          Jack ,
          if you were sick with cancer,
          or better your children
          would you go to a doctor with 10 degrees
          whose ALL predictio…operations turned out to be BS and who had a fantastic history of making up things and adjusting data to keep him out of prison
          or to someone who has a much better track record
          by calling out the operations as BS since the day the began .

          • Adrian says:

            I hope you do realize that Earth does not have a cancer. What you try is a false analogy and craps on logic.

            I would first want to see several planets ‘cured’ by climastrologers before trusting them.

            As for your false analogy, would you trust a doctor than never ever cured anybody and only diagnosed imaginary diseases? I don’t thin so.

        • Gator says:

          I wouldn’t go to a doctor who believes that fairies cause cancer, I would prefer a blogger who understands oncology.

          CAGW is a disproven hypothesis. Why do you clowns continue to hang on?

        • Steve W. says:

          If I had no symptoms, and all the raw scans showed no tumor, and the doctor was using genetic “modeling” to say I had cancer we couldn’t see and that I should start an incredibly painful and damaging round of chemo to treat this invisible cancer… I might hit up the internet to get some more info.

          At the very least I’d seek a 2nd opinion.

        • Joel says:


          I have been sick with cancer…twice actually (in 2013 and again in 2016)…and you are right. Of course, I would go to the trained doctor.

          But that’s still not really the argument.

          I might try a slightly different hypothetical along similar lines:
          My oncologist is VERY good, and expertly trained. But if he were to begin telling me that lumps or bumps on my body were malignant tumors and I was suspicious of his assessment, I could seek a second opinion. I might go to my family doctor, also a very good doctor. He’s not “peer-reviewed” in the sense of my oncologist nor on the same level him regarding cancer, but he would be qualified to test the lumps or bumps and tell me if they were merely cysts or something more sinister that the oncologist should investigate.

          Peer-reviewed science has its place and is important. But that doesn’t make it above reproach, nor should it prevent people – like Tony Heller, who has different but also impressive credentials – from questioning the science.

          If Greta Thunberg is given room to question world leaders and the UN’s stance on climate policy – and she’s not “peer-reviewed” in the slightest, surely Tony Heller, and anyone else, can question the claims of science.

          • Jack Hilgen says:

            Science is not above approach.

            Tony’s just not qualified.

            And he hasn’t proven that there are “lies” out there. He’s just put up a bunch of data. He would have to actually talk with the scientists to get their side of the story to have a real debate.

          • Gator says:

            Science is not above approach.

            Not above above approach? LOL

            Seems like you are not qualified to make comments. Understanding the language is required. Credentials please!

            Just what qualification is Tony missing?

            What are your qualifications for questioning Tony?

            Are you insinuating that calling personal opinions “data” is not a lie?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Gator: “Not above above approach? LOL”

            Yeah, I saw that also. I laughed also.

            “Seems like you are not qualified to make comments. Understanding the language is required. Credentials please!”

            Laughed at that, too. Combined with his arrogance, your reproach of Jackie’s ignorance is sufficiently earned. This latest clown troll deserves all the derision he is getting. And more.

        • Adrian says:

          No, it does not, necessarily. Here is an entry on my blog:
          Blogosphere, as you call it.
          I was annoyed by some pseudo scientific propaganda on facebook that warranted a visit to a climate model on GitHub, that withstood the ‘peer review’. It failed badly, in 5 min of ‘blogosphere’ checking. The short story is at the end of my blog entry. No matter how brainwashed you are, you must acknowledge that replacing CO2 with H2O in a model then yelling that CO2 is evil and does nasty things (when in your model is the modeled water that acts instead of CO2) is pseudo scientific. Despite that, it passed peer review. It did not pass ‘blogosphere’ review.

        • Jl says:

          Jack-if I were overweight and had heart trouble in the 19080s, would I go to a doctor that prescribed a low fat, high carb diet?

    • Robert Austin says:

      There are even peer reviewed papers on the travesty of academia that “peer reviewed” represents. It is also called “pal reviewed” by the not so credulous. Just read the Climategate emails for a taste of scientific squalor. Activism, grant seeking, rent seeking and fame seeking are destroying the credibility of science.

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        Climategate isn’t evidence of scientific squalor. It was thousands of email of discussions among scientists. As with all discussions, context matters, and words aren’t meaningful without context. It’s detractors have an axe to grind, but nothing more.

        The causal link of the earth warming (i.e., greenhouse gases) has been established with decades of research in spite of Tony’s unqualified posts.

        The questions that scientists are trying to answer are more complex and more difficult now. How fast? How much of an impact? Can we stop it?

        • Gator says:

          Really? LOL

          OK Jack, money where your loud mouth is…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  4. Jack Hilgen says:

    “I am reviewing other people’s junk science and fraud . . .”

    If you were intellectually honest, you would try to publish your findings and refute in a journal what they are saying. Instead, you’re just publishing into open space.

    • gregole says:

      Peer review is pal review. Especially in climate so-called science.

      And the data is the data. You are refuting Tony with generalities. Why don’t you demonstrate the error in his data.

      You’re playing the man, not the ball.

    • tonyheller says:

      In other words, you can’t find anything wrong with my criticisms of the worst junk science in history, and you want me to try to get the approval of the perpetrators.

    • Aussie says:

      Jack – you seem to have taken exception to my comment.

      Tony uses the freely available temperature data set and carries out basic analysis of it. I would be betting that if you took the same data and did the same you would get exactly what he gets. That is what we call verifiable science.

      Why is it that warmists have to “homogenise” and “model” things rather than use basic tools? Probably because all those adjustments allow them to get the answer they want – but that badly serves Australians as it is completely divergent to reality.

      And the processes they use are unavailable for review. We have absolutely no idea what data the BOM is using (and not using) and how it is treated to produce a “mean temperature anomaly” graph that bears no relationship to the actual data. They should stick to the basic data – but that does not tell the story they want us to see – obviously.

      I am old enough to clearly remember the worries about the new ice age coming in the 70s and a look at the actual temperatures of the time shows a low in the mid 70s – the lowest for the past century. But the BOMs graph completely erases it – it is so obviously manufactured and false.

      You seem to have some interest here and maybe you can tell us how they could have such a variance to the actual data?

      Again I ask, what scientist would sign off on such fraud?

      You may also like to visit the website below and see how the BOM has over 100 (and counting) weather sites that are non compliant (over 15% of those surveyed so far. ) See link below.

      It is completely laughable that a supposed science organisation has such a high degree of non compliance, and indicative of a careless attitude to data accuracy and a bad science culture. I work in Quality Assurance and the food plants I audit would be out of business long ago with such a disasterous record.

    • Gator says:

      If you were intellectual, you would find fault with Tony’s work. And if you were honest you would admit that you cannot.

      Don’t you believers have your holy echo chambers? Why are you here sh!t disturbing Jack? You clearly are not here to learn.

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    That’s a new one ‘land area’. Are they saying that as the area covered by urbanisation increases then the are of heat must increase. Are they saying that UHI effect is real and greater than the 0.1°C they adjust for

  6. Leonard gibbons says:

    According to some people I know in my area, many rural Australian towns have started recording the highest temperature of the day as “setting a new temperature record” rather than using the average temperature as in years gone by. I would be interested in learning if such a fraudulence is common in other countries too?

    • steve case says:

      Leonard gibbons
      Australian towns have started recording the highest temperature of the day as “setting a new temperature record” rather than using the average temperature as in years gone by.

      Really they are comparing the current MAX to historical AVE and claim a new record? I know the Climate Cult is dishonest that’s off the charts.

    • David of Aussie says:

      In Australia temp records may be being broken but this is not because towns or cities that dot the coastal fringe are getting warmer. Records are broken when hot air from the arid interior drifts towards the south eastern coasts where 90% of the people live. Why are the deserts becoming super heated? Because in this weather cycle they are getting less cooling rainfall events. The question to you have to ask yourself Lg is what is more likely to cause less monsoonal rainfall? Is it A)Because the Earth is getting warmer i.e.: more energy in the atmosphere and more evaporation of sea water. or is it B) Because the Earth is getting cooler. QED

  7. feathers says:


    Thanks again for your analysis. Today I’ll be making my third (albeit small) donation to support your work. This directly answers my question in yesterday’s post. If I recall correctly, the “fake tags” are temps denoted with an “E”. You’d think more scientists would call this out! Also, I wouldn’t think a weather station could claim an official high temperature with an “E” recording. So why not just compare official high temps for each day (I think we know the answer)?

    On a personal note, I’m finishing grad school in Dec (my 3rd advanced degree). On my “to-do” list when I get more free time is to play around with your Python script.

    • DCA says:


      I’m not sure the depths of the bad science being done in climatology have been fully plumbed yet. But it is clear that model data is being substituted for actual temperature measurements – and then the models are declared righteous because they match the temperatures. They’ve created the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

  8. Lapsley says:

    Can names of the actual person or persons with the final say in the falsification of NOAA and NASA temperature “data” be made public?

    Who exactly are they? What are their academic qualifications?

    How many private of business or first class flights and hotel stays at world global warming / climate change conferences do they attend?

    Remember, they are making peer-reviewed, scientifically rigorous corrections, not falsifications, to temperature data so that it conforms to the settled science of global warming and the global warming models. These people should be proud to have the global notoriety they are entitled to.

    Why not list them here? Surely, the NOAA and NASA payroll cannot be secret.

  9. Al Shelton says:

    @Jack Hilgen…………..
    Here is some advice for you Jack…
    Do NOT take up computer programming, as it requires someone with a logical mind.
    Tony has it, but sadly Jack, you do not.
    You talk like someone who is a avid believer in Astrology; or that people become monsters when there is a full moon.

  10. Mark Frank says:

    OK. Let’s do some serious analysis of Tony’s claim that this is another “wildly fraudulent dataset from the NOAA”

    First – the chart that Tony’s show is not from the NOAA. For some reason he has linked to the “Our World in Data” website. All they have done is reproduce a chart from the EPA (currently under firm control from the Trump administration). The EPA links to the NOAA as the source of the data but the method of analysis and presentation seems to be theirs. The seem to havetaken the long standing daily maxima data from NOAA and analysed and presented in several ways – including this one. So if there is a new fraud it is the EPA not the NOAA.

    However, what reason is there to suppose there is a fraud? The EPA present the data in a completely different way from Tony. They are interested in when, during the last 100 years or so, the hottest years happened by location. Temperatures are relative (the hottest 10% of years in that location) and by area (so it doesn’t affect the result if one area has more stations than another or if one location is particularly extreme one year). Tony presents several charts, but the first two are just the percentage of US network stations reaching 95 degrees F. This is absolute and across the whole of the US – so one location with a particularly large number of stations or a particularly extreme result will affect the overall picture.

    You could argue about how useful the two methods of presentation are. You could argue about validity of the adjustments the NOAA make to the raw data – and this has been debated many times for years (the NOAA are completely explicit and open in how and why they make the adjustments). However, there is absolutely no reason to suppose this chart is any kind of new fraud.

    • Gator says:

      Really? LOL

      Tony proves that a claim by alarmists is false, and you cannot grasp this?

      Thanks for all the hand waving!

    • GCSquared says:

      a) Technically, the graph itself claims that comes from NOAA “via the EPA”. I guess it’s true that the EPA bears primary responsibility for the plot, if it’s that important to assign responsibility precisely.
      b) I’m also have a difficult time deciding whether the NOAA/EPA plot is actually inconsistent with Tony’s. It’s certainly true that the 2 plots would lead you to different qualitative conclusions. However, it’s not obvious to me that the first 2 plots in this article contradict each other. For example, you might get both Tony’s plot and the EPA plot from identical data records, if cooler regions were becoming significantly warmer, but temperatures in the hottest regions were cooling only slightly.
      c) While it’s true that the 2 initial plots lead to contradictory impressions, this might be a prime illustration of the old saw, figures don’t lie but liars do figure. So, no fraud in the data, just spin in the presentation.

  11. Bob Hoye says:

    Despite evidence from Copernicus, Brahe and Galileo, and Kepler’s conclusions on elliptical orbits, the Church adamantly insisted that the universe rotated around the Vatican.
    And its case rested upon the “peer review” of scripture and the musings of Aristotle.

  12. Chris W says:

    “The term “unusual” in this case is based on the long-term average conditions at each location.”

    So, While Tony defined above 95F as “unusual,” NOAA did not define what they are using as “unusual”

    I think NOAAs data can be thrown out.

    • Mark Frank says:

      Chris W

      The NOAA did not use the term “unusual”. It was the EPA using NOAA data. They defined it as being amongst the 10% hottest years since 1910 for that location.

  13. Bill Allen says:

    Hi Tony,
    LOVE this video!

    You are on their nerves, for sure.

    I do science demonstrations and experiments for the kids at out middle school a couple times a year. I am an engineer, not a teacher, and I am planning a talk at our local middle school in January – I’m going to attempt a coup in the science lecture . Show the kids the Real Climate Science… Planning to see how traumatized these students are and what they think is happening.

    Do you have any materials I can use, please?
    Also I am trying to find and understand the datasets – where can I get this, and is your software available for educational purposes?
    Bill Allen

    • Jack Hilgen says:

      “You are on their nerves!”

      Whose nerves? Actual climate scientists don’t read this drivel. They’re too busy doing real research, which is difficult and tedious.

      Please don’t subject school children to this. It’s child abuse.

      • Gator says:

        No, what Greta’s parents do is child abuse.

      • Vegieman says:

        You are hilarious!

      • Lapsley says:

        Show the world that Tony Heller’s work is drivel. Prove him to be the disreputable liar you claim him to be.

        Prove with facts, data, and science that what he says here is false.

        Use the blank space right after my reply. Tony would welcome accurate analysis proving him wrong, because he is a real scientist. A theory, even his that shows with overwhelming evidence that the theory of man made global warming induced climate change is utterly false, can, if countervailing evidence is presented, likewise be disproven.

        But, there have been no such presentations. Where he welcomes people like you who only attack him, not his ideas, you ban him from even commenting on blatant absurdities of the global warming community.

        Your comments, empty of any rationality, do much to prove man made global warming is settled science fiction, not science at all, let alone settled.

  14. Jack Hilgen says:

    “NOAA claims that the area of the US with unusually hot summer afternoon temperatures is increasing to record highs.”

    Here’s the problem: NOAA doesn’t make this claim on its website!! Really! NOAA only presents the data and provides the source data.

    The data for this particular chart goes back to 1895. If you recast the chart, you actually get more data!

  15. 330south says:

    Link to an article by a climatologist about the fraud in climate science:

  16. 330south says:

    An article from a credentialed climate scientist about the severe flaws in current climate science:

  17. Joe Sommers says:

    None of this surprises me. After Challenger went down I took a position as liaison to NASA representing Thiokol in the effort to re-qualify the booster for flight. After being in my position only a couple weeks, there was a booster test that resulted in a failed booster nozzle. This unexpected failure kicked-off all day technical meetings as to determining root cause. After a week listening to all of the model data etc., I asked the question as to what happened when the nozzle was tested to prove its reliability. To my shock I was told that NASA had relied solely on a finite element model. The NASA engineers went on to tell me that the original model showed that the nozzle always (100% of the time) did not fail. They didn’t believe that result so the manipulated the input data. When that model predicted 100% failure, they manipulated the data again to get an acceptable failure rate! When we actually tested the nozzle it failed at a ridiculously low 50 psi pressure! I also found out that the famous clevis design was changed without testing but using a NASA FEA model that incorrectly assumed the distribution of pressure to save money. Which tragically resulted in the o-ring failure.

    Do I trust NASA data. Absolutely not. I have personally witnessed NASA manipulate data to predict the outcome they need to justify additional funding. Unfortunately, NASA is not longer about science, it is a large government bureaucracy that protects it’s funding at all cost. Even to the point of lying about the science/facts to make the politicians with the purse strings happy.

    I am a engineer/scientist, and yes there is climate change, there always will be. No there is not a scientific consensus as to the impact of human activity and I doubt there ever will be. Unless the predictive model accounts for the energy input variations from the sun, it is fatally flawed. Any time someone claims engineers and scientists have achieved settled science they are either ignorant, an idiot or a politician. As a colleague always points out to me, all of the subjective fields of study that are not true sciences such as physics, chemistry, math, etc. add science to their name to make the observer believe they are pure sciences capable of providing an absolute answer, ie. Political science, social science, climate science.

    Keep putting the truth out there.

    • GCSquared says:

      “Unless the predictive model accounts for the energy input variations from the sun, it is fatally flawed.”

      Actually, the variation in total solar irradiance (TSI) really IS small enough to ignore: it’s too feeble to account for the climate variations that correlate with sunspots. But this viewpoint assumes that major climate effects can only be due to major solar energy variations, while in fact, the likely mechanism is that solar magnetic activity influences the cosmic ray flux reaching the atmosphere, which in turn influences water vapor nucleation. This chain of interactions can switch the role of atmospheric water back and forth between a greenhouse (warming) vapor state and an energy-reflecting, high albedo cover of cloud droplets, which CAN cause significant changes in the portion of the nearly-constant TSI that actually reaches the earth’s surface..

      While you can’t blame people for having failed to anticipate Svensmark’s work, the question should have then been, “Well, then how DOES solar activity change climate in the way we observe?” Competent climate scientists should have been scratching their heads, wondering what they were missing. Instead, the community just ignored sunspots and swept data they couldn’t explain under the carpet. Arrogant dumbf**ks.

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.