NOAA Temperature Adjustments Are Not Credible

North American snow cover has been increasing during the snow season for the past fifty years.

NorAm Fall

NorAm Winter

Canada is normally covered in snow during the winter, so the increase in North American snow cover is due to the freeze line moving further south, meaning colder temperatures.

nsm_ave_temp_24hr_2020011905_National.jpg (801×458)

Raw data shows that US autumn/winter temperatures have been decreasing for a century.

The frequency of 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 degree days has also been decreasing.

The raw data is consistent with increase in snow cover, but after massive tampering by NOAA, they turned the cooling trend into a warming, trend, and made the recent record high snow years the warmest on record. Their data is not in the least credible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to NOAA Temperature Adjustments Are Not Credible

  1. Scissor says:

    There’s been about 0.2C of global warming since 1850 according to this analysis, which makes clear the cyclical nature of it.

  2. Arthur Jones says:

    thanks Tony; we all appreciate your diligent and thorough work.

    It has been pouring rain in SE Australia: where the fires were; but surprisingly, the media have not been celebrating our joy at this: we just get silence it seems.

    This weather site from little ole’ nz shows the current forecast: put your raincoats on!!

  3. Mohatdebos says:

    Perhaps I did not read the temperature anomaly map correctly, but it sure looked like the latest (2019) NOAA/NASA map showed the U.S. was cooler in 2019 than in 2018. Is there anyway to confirm or disprove.

  4. Dave N says:

    Wonder how MrSnrub74 on Twitter will reconcile this?

    Logic is not his strong suit. Apparently, it’s simpler explanation that they’re analyzing mountains of anomalous data and ensure thousands of instruments are calibrated than to just change the data.

  5. Robertv says:

    So it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but it is not a duck.

  6. richard says:

    This would tie in with-

    “Little known temp data from the state of the art U.S. Climate Reference Network (which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly “state of the climate” reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal”

    “The data, taken directly from NOAA’s national climate data page, shows not only that much of 2019 was below average, but that the US Temperature average is actually cooler now for 2019 than we were in 2005, when the dataset started”

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Tony, you wrote, “Their data is no in the least credible.”

    Typo? Should “no” be “not”?


  8. Norilsk says:

    Snow in Canada is an understatement. Saint John’s got 76.2 cm in a recent blizzard, a record since records have been kept back to 1942.

  9. Norilsk says:

    More about record snow in Newfoundland. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow looks like.” The end of snow? Instead we get record snow.

  10. CheshireRed says:

    If (or rather when) Trump wins his second term he should make it an absolute priority to smash this climate scam once and for all. After he’s gone from the presidency he’ll never get another chance it’ll be now or never.

    He’ll face a Mann-style attempt to draw out proceedings to past his retirement date so time will be of the essence.

    He should find a way to subpoena these ‘experts’ into court and get them to defend their clearly disreputable actions under oath. They won’t like that prospect one bit. Facing the possibly criminal prosecution with potentially huge jail time would focus minds wonderfully ensuring someone will break in exchange for a plea-bargain. If they’re ever going to turn evidence against the main players that’s when they’ll do it.

    He needs to get brutal on their sorry arses and fast. It’s the only way.

  11. Gummans Gubbe says:

    There is a measure called “growing degree days” or GDD. Used to estimate when the crops can be harvested.

    Even if it gets warmer and warmer (ref. NASA and other fraudsters) the plants still needs their heat to mature.

  12. No need to post the first paragraph here Tony. Small typo Tony “Their data is no in the least credible” should be “Their data is not in the least credible.” I often make this mistake :-) with “they” also becoming “the” :-(

    Your research is terrific. My frustration that I can’t convince my political class with factual material like this that there is something very seriously wrong with the “scientific community” and “climate change” generally is palpable!

    Keep up the great work and thanks.

  13. rwbenson says:


    I really appreciate your reporting on Climate facts. Keep up the good work.

    I have been doing a lot of study on the Climate Change issue and I find a lot of inconsistencies. I have several basic questions which you may wish to expand into a Post:

    1. How is the worldwide surface temperature calculated? I have looked for that “Basic” fact and I cannot find an explanation. Are there quadrants drawn on the Glove with equal weighting? Did someone develop and algorithm that determines the average temp based on stations that report temp and have a history that goes back 100 years. Who makes the decisions on both the way to calculate the worldwide temperature, (and the way to adjust the temperatures). How do we account for the vast land areas where there are no weather stations? The temperature stations in the USA have proven to be unreliable by the Watts study (Heat island, etc). I have to assume that the reporting in Africa (for example) are less reliable. How are Africa, Asia, Antarctica, South America, etc accounted for when the “Warmest year on record is determined”. They certainly do not have a credible 100+ year history.

    2. Since the daily temperature is an “average” or a “mean” (I don’t know which is used), What is the change in the Night Time Low vs the Day Time High. Is is possible that the Night Time Low temperatures are driving the Worldwide temperature that is reported by the Agencies. I know that John Christy has done a lot of work in this area.

    3. A question for the subject of the topic for today. Is there anywhere to find the list of adjustments for North America and rational for each adjustment?

    • MGJ says:

      Another basic question I have is:

      Precisely what is the definitive scientific claim being made behind cAGW?

      Yes, it is “the greenhouse effect” and usually, but not always “the radiative greenhouse effect”, I got that. But there’s so many different versions and every time one gets shot down it just morphs into a slightly different claim. This moves it outside the realm of science since falsification is now impossible. You cut the head off the hydra and it immediately grows two more.

      None of this seems to bother believers in the slightest.

  14. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    I’m fascinated by the graph showing adjustments to the USA maximum temperatures for September through February.

    This looks to be about 1 Deg. C since 1980, which is incidentally greater than the increase in Global Temperature Anomaly according to GisTemp over that time period.

    This is not to suggest that US-Temps should be considered the same as Global-Temps, but it is a rather curious adjustment, indeed. The steepness of the adjustments over the past two decades belies the narrative of “dangerous warming” – indeed, this looks rather like the tactics of desperate amateurs.

    Furthermore, it is not sustainable. LoL!

  15. Disillusioned says:

    Furthermore, it is not sustainable.


  16. Tony,
    I have been following your output for about two years now since I bought myself an i pad. as an 85 year old retired UK chartered mechanical engineer, I like to think with a modicum of common sense, I find your arguments, together with those of a considerable number of other retired, or sacked! members of the scientific community too compelling to be ignorged.
    What I can’t get my mind around is the total absence of support from the technically educated 20% of the working population in the west. I can perhaps understand oil, having as it does a history of attack by the 80% Humanities educated environemental majority, but why are no technical people in politics prepared to stand up and blow the whistle?
    There should be political mileage in the media for a right wing publication to “have a go” rather than slavishly folly the rest of the lemmings over a cliff. We need to get political money into counter Anthprological CO2 research.

  17. Clare Swift says:

    Here’s is some more data tampering. This Central Greenland Temp 4k BP to Present chart has been widely distributed on the net. Note the addition of HadCRUT data (in red) which follows on from the original chart produced by Alley, 2004. It shows the Modern Warm Period as being warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – this is a blatant lie! During MWP, the Vikings were in Greenland, farming including making Mead – which, as I’m sure you all know requires lots of pretty flowers & Bees. Today & for the last 750 years it’s been permafrost. They are utterly shameless

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.