The Superbowl Of Data Tampering

NOAA shows that US afternoons have warmed sharply over the past century.

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

NOAA thermometer data shows cooling. The warming only appears after the data is altered.

 

These adjustments are made despite the fact that hot days used to be much more common in the US.

The National Climate Assessment agrees with the graphs I create.

 

Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

The primary excuse for the data tampering is Time of Observation Bias (TOB) – which based on the belief that if your twenty four hour measuring period begins too close to the daily maximum, average maximum temperatures will be too high. The opposite occurs if the 24 hour period begins too close to the daily minimum, average minimum temperatures will be too low.

In this case, the 24 hour period begins at 4PM, and average maximum temperatures are too high.

In this case, the 24 hour period begins at 4AM, and average minimum temperatures are too low.

Fort Collins Weather Station Custom Data Plots

NOAA believes that most stations during the 1930s used a 24 hour period which began in the afternoon, causing average 1930s afternoon temperatures to be too high. This is easy enough to test out by splitting the stations up into afternoon groups and morning groups.

The morning stations average about three degrees warmer, because people at warmer locations are more likely to read thermometers in the morning.

If these two graphs are normalized, it becomes clear that there is almost no difference between the trends of the two groups of stations. TOB has very little effect.

Missouri is the best state to look at in more detail, because they had nearly an equal number of morning and afternoon stations in 1936.

NOAA massively adjusts Missouri temperatures to cool the past.

But the two groups (morning and afternoon) are nearly identical, particularly during the 1930s. The NOAA adjustments are fraudulent.

The real story is that NOAA is simply making data up. Almost half of it is now fake.

I pointed this out in 2014, and Anthony Watts originally disagreed with me – but later he came around and realized I was correct. He talked to Zeke and NOAA, and they acted shocked and surprised. Anthony thought they would fix it in a week.  But six years later the problem has only gotten worse.

Reality is that the data is being tampered with precisely to match the increase in atmospheric CO2.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Superbowl Of Data Tampering

  1. GeologyJim says:

    Thanks for the back story regarding your past discussions with Anthony Watts

    Cognitive dissonance kicks in when confronted with the suggestion that some cops hide evidence and some “climate scientists “make up and fudge data

    Follow the money

  2. Al Shelton says:

    Thank you Tony.
    If you don’t point these errors out, nobody else will, or can.

  3. G W Smith says:

    Excellent report, Tony! Unfortunately the alarmist left doesn’t care if it is found out to be lying. It’s devotees consider it necessary. Kind of like takiya.

  4. Dan says:

    This is a nice compilation. I especially appreciate the explanation of Time of Observation Bias and the map of the Change in Warmest Temperature of the Year.

  5. Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

    Punxsutawney Phil says it’s now Spring. I know his accuracy is below half, but it’s definitely higher than alarmists. When you’re outsmarted by a squirrel, there’s a problem. On a lighter note, being an eastern Kansan, hooray for the Chiefs! Boo Yah!

  6. Clive Horridge says:

    As always Tony, good work indeed. It sickens me that without your checks, these errors (deliberate or otherwise) will pass without comment or correction.
    In your opinion, is there any chance to expose this tampering in a way that governments take notice and reverse or tone down their commitments to “carbon neutral” policies founded on fraudulent data?
    Trump seems convinced, but Boris seems to be stuck in the old groove. I guess he’s busy with other matters (Brexit treaties etc.) but I want to lobby him on these issues if I can.
    Sincerely, Thank you🙏🏻

  7. Winston says:

    Am I the only one that finds it peculiar that the “Time of Observation” for a given temperature monitoring station is at a single time of day (e.g., 4 p.m., 4 a.m.)? Why not collect data from a given station at both 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. (presumably this might give the daily high/low, although that’s certainly not always the case)? IF it had been standard operating procedure to collect the temperature at both 4 a.m./p.m. from each station, wouldn’t the Time of Observation Bias cease to exist?

    Secondly, something about the explanation regarding the average maximum temperature difference between morning/afternoon stations makes no sense. The morning stations (so those at which the temperature was taken at 4 a.m.) averaged 3 degrees (F) warmer than those that took the temperature at 4 p.m., per Tony’s post. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Let’s take the 1934 readings as an example. The afternoon stations had an average temperature of 67 F at 4 p.m. during the year 1934. So the hot summer days were offset by cold winter days, and we end up with an average 4 p.m. temperature of 67 F. That’s fine. Now, the morning stations had an average of 70 F at 4 a.m. during the year 1934, three degrees higher than the average 4 p.m. temperature!? How is that possible. The 4 a.m. temperature should be at least 20 degrees colder than the 4 p.m. temperature, on average.

    The explanation provided in the text says: “The morning stations average about three degrees warmer, because people at warmer locations are more likely to read thermometers in the morning.” What does that have to do with anything? If a morning station is supposed to take a temperature reading at 4 a.m., why does it matter if it’s at a warmer location? In any case, how can the average temperature readings at 4 a.m. be 3 degrees warmer than those taken at 4 p.m.?

    • Al Shelton says:

      If i live in a cold location I skip reading the temp.
      Thus there are no low temps to keep the average accurate.
      IMO…

    • Winston says:

      I guess I’m the only one. LOL.

    • Archie says:

      I’ll take a crack at answering this. I have a hi-lo thermometer on my windowsill. Often, the temperature at 4am is warmer than the temperature at say, 5am. If I reset (and record, which I don’t) at 4am, the colder 5am temperature just gets lost as the day begins and naturally warms up.

    • RW says:

      It’s a simple explanation. The morning readings tend to come from warmer regions. The thermometer locks in the min and max across some time period until the thermometer is reset. If read and reset daily, the min and max reading reflects the previous 24 hour cycle. You tend to read it (and reset it) in the morning if outside gets steaming hot during the day and you tend to read it in the afternoon if outside is too cold in the morning. The graph you’re missing is the one in which the morning and afternoon stations are plotted as a function of latitude. You’ll find the morning stations at lower latitude than the afternoon ones.

  8. Ron Henderson says:

    Question about the graphs and note under the heading; The primary excuse for the data tampering is Time of Observation Bias.
    The 4am and 4 pm seem to be switched around with the proper header for the figure/graph

    See File attached

    • RW says:

      The thick vertical line through the middle of the red highlight is the read and reset point. The red highlight is merely the 24 hours before and after that point. The thin vertical lines are midnights. So the graphs are correct.

      Tony, improve your labelling to minimize confusion. Try to look at them from the eyes of the uninitiated.

  9. DO YOU HAVE A DATE THIS MONTH TO COME TO BE IN A DEBATE
    I am to host a Debate where you would be the STAR
    As undergrad @ DU in late 60s/earl 70s fear was that Clorado would be Californictaed!
    Connecticut is so now.
    I know the new Governor well, whilst a left wing looney he can listen & would attend.
    Been my home for all my 72 years, Licensed Landscape Architect for 40 years FRUSTRATED that ears are closed to my real PLANNING….have place for you & yours to stay, including on my boat that is in water year ’round!
    Venue is Belle Haven Club on Long Island Sound…FUN REQUIRED!

  10. Independent says:

    Tony, this is one of your best posts yet (that’s really saying something given the high quality of most of your posts). Congratulations on explaining this so thoroughly and convincingly! Keep up the great work.

  11. Stephen Reiss says:

    I especially appreciate graphics using simple raw data like the maximum daily temperature. It is the kind of thing that even elementary school children can understand. With this in mind, it would be wonderful if you could do this type of analysis for every weather station with a 100+ year record world wide and create an ebook of the results.

    I know this will be a large task, so I offer my time at no charge to help you accomplish this project. I am a retired old dog, so I have lots of time available and no need for compensation.

  12. Mark A Luhman says:

    Most of the what is called global warming is UHI and of course the adjustments, in most other areas of science adjusting data will get you fired! In the climate a field you get rewarded for it

  13. rwbenson says:

    Tony,
    Thanks for stating this temperature correction issue in such a clear way. I hope that you are correct about the correction process. Since you started pointing this out in your videos and in your blog, this apparent fraud has caused me consternation. I would love to see NOAA (The government) admit to a mistake and correct it. We will wait and see. Keep up the good work.

    BTW – You may wish to reference a quote by John Adams some time in the future. It describes your approach to this lack of facts very well.

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”. This quote was from Adams’ defense of the British soldiers in the trial of the British soldiers for the Boston Massacre – a pretty gutsy thing for Adams to do.

  14. rwbenson says:

    Tony,
    Is there a place on the NOAA web site where they list which temperatures have been adjusted and why they have been adjusted?
    Thanks.

  15. rwbenson says:

    Tony,
    Would you please comment on the lowest temperature trend shown in Chapter 6; Fig 6.3 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) and how that relates to the adjustments. There may be a number of people (besides me) interested in how the mean minimum daily temperature has trended (without adjustmens) for the last 200 years and how the daily average mean temperature is calculated. Will changes to the Time of Observation Bias (TOB) adjustments change the night time temperatures as well?

  16. Don Vickers says:

    TOB problem was fixed with the introduction of the T max-min thermometer several decades ago. A “U” shaped thermometer with a bead that records the max and min temps in a 24 hour period so TOB is irrelevant. Does anyone have the data about when these thermometers were introduced ? If so there would be a strong case for the elimination of TOB from that date.

  17. OldCynic says:

    It is refreshing to read an article that says: “Let’s let them get on with their work. It won’t be helpful to anyone to start beating them up before they have finished” and “Patience and restraint is what we need”. If only others would follow the “more science, less screaming” approach.

  18. michael nunn says:

    I have uncovered the REAL discrepancy in Climate Change / Global Warming Theory.
    Greta Thunberg is right: the world is warming, CO2 levels are rising; HERE ARE THE REASONS :
    WASTE HEAT FROM COMBUSTION HAS BEEN IGNORED BY MET AND CLIMATE EXPERTS in their theories and models . THE EFFECT IS LOCAL AND NOT GLOBAL. HENCE THE LOCAL TEMPERATURES AS MEASURED ARE AT ODDS WITH THOSE OF THE MODELS ! SIMPLE REALLY !!
    Please focus on LOCAL ( 1/10 of the Global surface is inhabited and is where the Waste heat is located IT IS NOT SPREAD GLOBALLY UNLIKE CO2 !!
    Also focus on water Vapour; a result of convection, evaporation, condensation (latent heat etc) Lastly MATTER must be conserved cannot be destroyed CARBON exists as either solid, gas and liquid CO2 as the gas merely REFLECTS THE STATUS OF NATURE’S CONTROL MECHANISM AT WORK

  19. Ronald Henderson says:

    Nevermind…my comment was too early in the morning. Have a great evening! LOL

  20. This could possibly be one of your best posts Tony. Well done and thank you very much for giving me such high quality research material. I really appreciate it. The misinformation underlying the fallacy that the earth’s atmosphere is significantly warming is at the core of the alarmist thesis. Enlighten the authorities that data has been manipulated, for whatever reason, in order to present a false narrative, and it is to be hoped that they have not so committed themselves to foolish policies and actions, that they cannot resile from these to a course where common sense and good governance prevails. We can only persevere and hope. Once again, thanks.

    • RW says:

      The sattelite data, even UAH, show warming post 1980. The issue is not that it has NOT warmed recently (because it has!), it’s that it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled half a dozen times over the past few thousand years all on its own. It is that a new superstitious ‘green’ religious thinking is being used to subvert science, capitalism, and the republic, reflecting the latest salvo of a 200 year ideological war between american liberalism and the reactionary despotic ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Stalin and hundreds more tyrants at all scales.

  21. saveenergy says:

    Well done Tony, keep up the good work

  22. Johansen says:

    I hope you are fairly compensated some day for this work. You’re doing the work of 50 lazy journalists, and at least 10 ignorant legal defense teams

  23. Jan Jachnik says:

    Tony, what sort of temperature measuring devices are being used? A simple minimax thermometer records the minimum and maximum temperatures until it is reset, presumably after the readings are taken. It would make no difference when the readings are taken as long as it is done at the same time each day.

    • tonyheller says:

      The point of my example is that min/max thermometers do record different values depending on what time they are reset.

  24. gregole says:

    Looks like the response in 2014 was the usual huffing and puffing (“I’m shocked, simply shocked; had I known!”) followed by business as usual.

  25. Robert Gipson says:

    Superbowl is a good analogy. I’m thinking the Guiness Book might be interested.

  26. John Sutcliffe says:

    Hi Tony thanks for your great material; the issue is the alarmist argument is receiving open ended funded by government and any opposition is self funding; there has to be a conspiracy thru United Nations.
    The ABC is running a beat up on bushfires caused by climate change, every day there is around three articles on climate change, see URL to yesterdays article on scientists write and open letter. : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-03/scientists-sign-letter-demanding-climate-action-in-australia/11922808, of course the stories also get heavy coverage on radio and television.

    • RW says:

      John. Legacy (corporate) media is part of the core problem. Their role is propaganda. Turn off the news programming that comes out of ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, NPR, PBS, etc. Online social media is far more informative and you have far more choice there. You’ll get the chance to sample far mode citizen journalism. Tony is part of that. But, while the social media giants seek to replace legacy media, they’re not aiming to revise the propagandizing role of legacy media. Rather, they want to expand it. Totalize it. Tony’s YouTube channel will get banned if it achieves a level of popularity high enough to be considered a threat to the reigning paradigm. Democratic congresspeople are aldeady calling for tge censure of heretics to their green religion.

  27. DCA says:

    Hmmm.

    If they are substituting model data for actual measurements, they are creating the perfect self-licking ice cream cone.

  28. Andrew Gough says:

    Have you looked at the U.S. Climate Reference Network?

    Articles are published like this one:

    Claim of no US warming since 2005 is directly contradicted by the data it is based on

    … where they make claims that “Raw data show more global warming since 1880 than is reported by NOAA [or shown in other datasets]. This is because NOAA “adjusts” temperature data to fairly compare different measurement times, places, and technologies. The cooling effect of adjustments on global temperatures has been shown lots of times, such as with the graph below for 1880—2013 temperatures.”

    Then show the graph captioned below.

    Have you dug into what they’re doing there?

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.