Zombie Climate Science

Daily temperature data from NOAA’s United States Historical Climatology Network shows that US maximum temperatures last year were tied for second coolest on record with 1912. The only cooler year was 1993, which was affected by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The trend is strongly downwards since the 1930s.

But NOAA alters the data to turn cooling into warming, and they changed 2019 from second coolest to 71st coolest, or 54th warmest.

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

NOAA does not adjust daily temperature data, rather they calculate monthly averages and adjust the monthly data. Their monthly “raw” temperatures are very similar to what I calculate from the daily temperatures. NOAA’s “final” data set is very similar to their published graphs, like the one above.

The adjustments are done in two stages. First is a time of observation adjustment (TOB), and then comes the final adjustment.

Temperatures prior to 1980 are cooled more than a degree, and recent temperatures are warmed nearly one degree. There is a hockey stick after the year 1980.

Time of Observation Bias adjustments are small, and haven’t changed for 20 years. The vast majority of data tampering is done in the final adjustment.

Since the year 1980, final and TOB adjustments are diverging in a hockey stick.’

There has been a sharp decline in the number of reporting stations over the past 30 years.

When NOAA doesn’t have data for a station, they fabricate it. More than 40% of the data is now “estimated” from a computer model.

More than one third (424) of the 1,218 USHCN stations had estimated data for all 12 months in 2019.  These fake (zombie) stations averaged about two degrees warmer than the adjusted measured stations and the raw daily measurements.

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that zombie stations are the cause of the post-1980 hockey stick, so I tried a different experiment to test that theory.  I used the set of all 672 stations which had daily temperature data for both 1919 and 2019. This group only had 15% fake data in 2019, compared to 42% when using the group of all 1,218 stations.

That group had 8% zombie stations, and shows similar patterns to the group of all 1,218 stations.

Raw temperatures show a downwards trend over the past century,

Time of observation bias adjusted shows a slight warming trend.

Final adjusted shows a strong warming trend since 1980.

Adjustments form a hockey stick after 1980.

The hockey stick appears in the final adjustment.

The average temperature adjustments being made very closely match the increase in CO2 over the past century.

The fake post-1980 hockey stick gets carried over into other data sets, like this one which shows a sharp rise in the area of the US with unusually high summer maximum temperatures since 1980.

Natural Disasters – Our World in Data

This post-1980 rise doesn’t exist. It is not present in the National Climate Assessment.

Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

The press refuses to talk to me, and instead talks to fraudster John Cook, who tells them there is no data tampering and there are no Urban Heat Island effects. Cook says “independent” data sets from different agencies proves that the data is good.

Climate change: 10 common myths – and what science really says – CBS News

In 1989. Tom Karl and Phil Jones said UHI was huge.


Different government agencies colluded to tamper with data.


And when Senator Roberts from Australia queried NASA about obvious fraud in the Icelandic temperature record, Gavin Schmidt responded by blaming it on NOAA and saying it wasn’t his data.


A small handful of people are pulling off a massive fraud, and because the press refuses to talk to scientists with accurate information, the public suffers.

Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change | Environment | The Guardian

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Zombie Climate Science

  1. Gator says:

    UHI is not very substantial?

    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.


    Cook is a liar.

  2. Steve Case says:

    Heathrow third runway ruled illegal over climate change | Environment | The Guardian

    And various cities around the country have started to ban natural gas citing climate change.

  3. arn says:

    “Scientist” will never allow the failure of global warming science
    as this would mean that 95% of global warming scientists would lose their jobs.

  4. Tom Abbott says:

    A “tour de force, Tony!

    Let’s see the alarmists refute this.

    The dishonest Data Manipulators are causing mental anguish all over the globe and are costing humanity TRILLIONS of dollars in misspent money trying to fix a CO2 problem that only exist in the science fiction of the Modern-era Hockey Stick Chart Lie, which you have more than adequately demonstrated here.

    We ought to be showing our politicians this Tony Heller article and asking them why they are spending taxpayer money on a bunch of Hockey Stick lies.

    There is no unprecedeted warming today. There is no CO2 problem. There is no CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). The Modern-Era Hockey Stick is a Big Lie!

  5. Jim Curry says:

    I am not a scientist but I have a hard time believing the IPCC theory of “radiative forcing”. I understand that CO2 is a very small % of GHG and likely has very little to do with global warming. The IPCC seems to have invented RF to try to explain their theory that CO2 in such small quantities has a major impact on Climate? I would like to hear other, more qualified, folks comment on this. Thanks

    • “I understand that CO2 is a very small % of GHG”

      The harmlessness of CO2 has been greatly exaggerated by your sources, which evidently have been trying hard to refute established science.

      On average there is about 12.9 exagrams (1 exagram or Eg is 1 trillion metric tonnes) of water in the atmosphere and this has not changed significantly over the past thousand years.

      To calculate the mass of CO2 in exagrams, divide ppm by 128. Back when CO2 was at 280 ppm, its mass was 280/128 = 2.2 Eg, whence those two GHGs had a combined mass of 12.9 + 2.2 = 15.1 Eg.

      “and likely has very little to do with global warming.”

      Because of those two GHGs, surface temperature is some 60 °F above what it would be if the atmosphere contained neither of those two greenhouse gases. This has been known since the 19th century. This comes to about 4 °F per Eg.

      Today CO2 is 135 ppm higher than when it was 280 ppm, an increase in mass of 135/128 = 1.05 Eg. Temperature does not respond instantaneously or we would have seen a warming of 1.05 * 4 = 4.2 °F; for that we may have to wait two or three centuries assuming CO2 stops rising at this level.

      “The IPCC seems to have invented RF”

      First of all, the IPCC is an intergovernmental body created in 1988 by the the joint efforts of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme to inform the world’s major governments about the scientific understanding of climate change. It neither invents nor discovers anything, it only reports on peer-reviewed literature.

      Second, our understanding of how greenhouse gases warm the surface has improved a step at a time with the work of Horace de Saussure in the 1780s, Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, John Tyndall in the 1850s, Svante Arrhenius at the turn of the century, Guy Callendar in the 1930s, Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling in the 1950s, and so on. All this happened long before the world’s major governments became concerned enough about the possible consequences of global warming to ask the scientific community to advise them as to the likely future risks.

      “theory that CO2 in such small quantities has a major impact on Climate”

      So far the rise in CO2 from 280 to 415 ppm has warmed the surface about 2 °F, with a further 2 °F increase likely if CO2 stops rising.

      However it is extremely unlikely that CO2 will stop there, as can be seen from the attached graph, which can also be seen at
      This graph shows CO2 following the function 280 + 1.0203^Y where Y = y – 1776.8 is the number of years since James Watt sold his first new-and-improved coal-burning steam engine to the Carron Company. CO2 has followed this function ever since, to within ±5 ppm, and is showing no sign whatsoever of slowing down. If it keeps on at that rate, CO2 will reach 940 ppm by 2100. 940/128 = 7.35 Eg, corresponding to an eventual rise (centuries later) of 7.35 * 4 = 29 °F. This increase, if sustained for several more centuries, is quite sufficient to melt the Antarctic ice pack, which is estimated to raise sea levels by some 190 feet, enough to completely inundate the whole of Manhattan along with some two hundred trillion dollars (in 2020 dollars) of real estate.

      Your great-great-grandchildren won’t live to see this, but their eventual descendants will.

  6. Archie says:

    “These fake (zombie) stations averaged about two degrees warmer than the adjusted measured stations and the raw daily measurements.”

    Of course they do! The climate models consistently over predict temperatures, versus actual satellite and balloon data, by several degrees.

  7. Richard Merrill says:

    I guess all those airliners flying around in holding patterns waiting for a runway to be available to land on don’t use any fuel! The new runway is designed to reduce the number of planes in the air waiting to land.

  8. Richard Merrill says:

    How do we know if the GHCN temps haven’t been altered by the same “scientists”? Penn State maybe?

  9. Disillusioned says:

    The press refuses to talk to me, and instead talks to fraudster John Cook, who tells them there is no data tampering and there are no Urban Heat Island effects.

    I think the public are generally ignorant about climate history and the fraudulent manipulations to the temperature records because [instead of doing their job] the press tirelessly collude and purposefully promote the message by the creators of the U.N. / western governments-financed Climate Change™ science fiction, while willfully ignoring and censoring ALL the dissenting data that expose it for the sick fraud that it is.

    • rah says:

      “The press” are doing their job as they see it. Their job is to lie and deceive to present the narrative their bosses demand which usually corresponds with their own beliefs. It has nothing to do with facts or truth.

  10. RW says:

    Pretty good post.

    Tho I disagree with the claim that the TOAs are “small”. The graph shows they are as large as the second adjustments (i.e. the adjustment from TOA to final) until about 2000 (+/- a couple years), after which, yes, I would agree, the TOA is “small” relative to the second adjustement.

    That said, great to see your effort to reverse-engineer the adjustment process. It’s a crucial part of the overall puzzle.

    Re: zombie stations. One approach to consider: plot the average temp and 95% interval and min max range for the TMAX of all zombie stations, year by year. Do the same for non zombie stations and plot them on the same graph.

  11. Cyril Wentzel says:

    Can this be the basis of a publication?
    There must be some journal willing to allow the dissection of that hockey stick?
    It would need some respectable title of course. But all you need to do is show the consistent adjustments.

  12. Jan Jachnik says:

    The Heathrow runway decision (see https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Heathrow-summary-of-judgments-26-February-2020-online-version.pdf) is based on a technicality in the wording of the government’s proposals “The Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the ANPS and an explanation given as to how it was taken into account, but it was not”. This could be remedied by fixing the wording to address this but it gives Boris Johnson, in whose constituency the airport lies, a let-out to do nothing without having to confront his own party that voted for the airport expansion. Johnson does not have a large majority in his own consituency and needs to pacify his voters, many of whom are against the expansion.

    I can no longer stay cool.


    side note(s) Country first Earth close 2nd, Humans First all other critters 2nd

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.