Are Official US Temperature Graphs Credible?

Ninety years ago, the New York Times reported unanimous consensus that Earth’s climate was controlled by the sun.

TimesMachine: July 2, 1931 –

Now NASA reports 97% consensus that Earth’s climate is controlled by CO2.

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I agree with them – the warming trends over the last century are primarily due to human activities – data tampering by organizations like NASA and NOAA. For example, over the past 20 years NASA has turned a cooling trend in the US from 1930 to 1998 into a warming trend. This is the 1999 version.

NASA 1999

And this is NASA’s current graph.

NASA 2021

Here is an animation showing how the data has been altered over the past 20 years.

The US temperature record is very important, because the vast majority of global stations in the NOAA GHCN database with a long term daily temperature record are located in the US.


In 1986, NASA’s James Hansen predicted 4-6 degrees warming for the US by the year 2020, and a huge increase in heatwaves.

“He said that with an expected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2040, the number of days each year with temperatures over 80 degrees would rise from 35 to 85 in Washington, D.C., and Omaha, Neb.”

12 Jun 1986, Page 12 – The Evening Times at

The actual temperature increase from 1958 to 2020 was about one degree.

The closest currently operational USHCN station to Omaha is at Logan, Iowa. The number of 90 degree days there peaked in 1894 and 1936 (83) and have been declining sharply ever since.

The closest currently operational USHCN station in Virginia to Washington DC is at Purcellville.  The number of 90 degree days there peaked in 1911 (96) and 1930 (89) and have been declining sharply ever since.

For the entire US, the frequency of 90 degree days has dropped sharply over the past century. Hansen got that exactly backwards.

In 1988, Hansen predicted a large increase in droughts.

“Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who presented recent data compiled from computer models, said that predicted regional effects of global warming show that the chances of summer drought in the low and middle latitudes would be 1 in 3 by the year 2030, as against 1 in 20 in the 1950’s.”


During the 1950’s the US was in drought most of the time, but droughts have been much less common over the past 60 years. Hansen also got that exactly backwards.

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

One year after Hansen made his forecasts, scientists at NOAA set the record straight.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

“After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.”

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend –

Ten years later, Hansen was upset that the US wasn’t warming as he predicted and the droughts weren’t occurring.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

So Hansen and NOAA got together and altered the US temperature record. NOAA now shows a warming trend from 1895 to 1987.

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

In 2004, NOAA showed that they were altering US temperatures by 0.5F since the year 1900, with no further charges after 1990.

Wayback Machine

But now they are altering the data by more than two degrees Fahrenheit.

The graph below compares the 2004 adjustments in blue, to the current adjustments in red.

And the next graph normalizes the two sets of adjustments along the Y-Axis. There has been a huge increase in the amount of data tampering for years since 1990, which makes no sense because the data should be stabilizing after 1990, as in the 2004 version of the adjustments.

The NOAA adjustments trend very closely with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or at least they did until three years ago, when there was a huge increase in the amount of tampering. Data is being altered to match global warming theory.

NOAA fabricates missing data using a computer model, and last year almost 50% of their monthly US temperature data was fabricated.

This is the data for Brewton, Alabama. If the data is estimated rather than measured, it is marked with an “E” – All twelve months of 2020 were marked with an E.

The current data tampering is huge. The measured daily maximum temperature data for the US shows a strong cooling trend.

But the adjusted data shows a strong warming trend.

Official US temperature graphs are not in the least credible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Are Official US Temperature Graphs Credible?

  1. akak says:

    Thank you Tony.

    Error in verbiage? After the first graph you said “I agree with them – the warming trends over the last century are primarily due to human activities – data tampering by organizations like NASA and NOAA. For example, over the past 20 years NASA has turned a 70 year warming trend in the US from 1930 to 2000 into a warming trend. This is the 1999 version. (?Turned a warming trend into a warming trend?) I believe you meant cooling to warming eh?

    Thanks again for all your work

  2. D. Boss says:

    All this evidence should be overwhelming to any rational person with even a tiny amount of critical thinking. But the power of a cult is enormous…. and coupled with the systematic dumbing down of each generation via non-schools…. (so idiot cult followers easily dismiss real data/evidence)

    I think one of the most important charts Tony presents as the evidence of intent to commit fraud is the one that plots the adjustment value against the CO2 concentration.

    If you were to make an analogy: Let’s say carmaker X suggests that going faster results in better fuel mileage. They make simplistic arguments eaten up by the masses that the engine burns fuel at the same rate per hour, but when speed increases you cover more miles in an hour, so you get more miles per gallon of fuel consumed.

    The argument makes sense to those unfamiliar with basic science (i.e. 99% of the dumbed down population) (who are unaware that wind resistance rises as the square of the speed)

    This fraudulent carmaker posts made up or “adjusted” fuel mileage values that they measure for years to support their underlying premise.

    Then along comes someone who uncovers the adjustments, and plots the adjustments to the fuel mileage against vehicle speed. It follows a line where adjustments to the measurements rise as speed rises…. (actually in this analogy the adjustment vs speed curve would be more exponential due to the wind resistance being proportional to velocity squared)

    This is what Tony’s chart shows – it shows intent to commit fraud with temperature adjustments coinciding with the rise in CO2. It cannot be an accident that the “adjustments” happen to correlate with the increase in CO2.

    If the raw data coincided with the CO2 rise, then you have some evidence the theory is correct. But if you have to adjust the data to fit the theory, you are a scam artist, fraud, and liar. Certainly not a “settled” science!

    This adjustments vs CO2 chart shows that the “adjustment” process is not some innocent attempt to correct inaccuracy, it is a deliberate attempt to fudge the numbers in support of an hypothesis which has been refuted by the measurements.

    Keep up the good work, Tony! (also note, Tony goes to great lengths to show by numerous independent sources that the temperature record is not highly inaccurate and in need of adjustment – which is why they’d rather cancel and dismiss him than debate him honestly)

  3. dm says:

    Tony, thanks for exposing the current version of climate alarmism–Mannthropomorphic Warming.

    Thanks too for returning science to climatology. Science requires observation validate hypotheses. Your hypothesis is: Data tampering underLIES mannthropomorphic warming. You have validated the hypothesis many times and many ways. More importantly, your “experiments” are repeatedly replicated by others.

    A result is: Another climate alarmist fantasy has been turned into a bad manntasy.

  4. scott allen says:

    I can maybe see past adjustments of temperature (TOB) (I don’t agree with them but might accept them). But how do they justifiy the last 10-20 years of adjustments to the temperature record as they now have every station readings at the same time, I have never read a reason/justification (from NOAA) why they are continuning to adjust the record.

  5. Andrew Hall says:

    Since government data tampering is now endemic can we now pretty accurately predict future temperature trends simply by ‘aiming off’ – correcting published predictions for the known fiddle factors? :)
    We could feed back these revised predictions to the soviets – err agencies – insisting they redouble their data output or miss the planned targets and get fired…..
    This is how Soviet agriculture worked.

  6. Garner Clay says:

    From “New Science of Politics” by Eric Voegelin . . . (and my comments)

    Important theme is the change in the west from Christian foundation to Gnosticism.

    “The study of the phenomenon in its contemporary varieties, however, has become more difficult than it was at Hooker’s time. In the sixteenth century the dream world and the real world were still held apart terminologically through the Christian symbolism of the two worlds. The disease, and its special variety, could be diagnosed easily because the patient himself was supremely conscious that the new world was not the world in which he lived in reality.’’

    ‘Christians understood fantasy’

    “With radical political creation of the dream world, it has blended into the real world terminologically; the obsession of replacing the world of reality by the transfigured dream world has become the obsession of the one world in which the dreamers adopt the vocabulary of reality, while changing its meaning, as if the dream were reality.’’

    Now, goal to twist dreams into reality.

    “An example will best show the nature of the difficulty for the student. In classic and Christian ethics the first of the moral virtues is sophia or prudentia, because without adequate understanding of the structure of reality, including the conditio humana, moral action with rational co-ordination of means and ends is hardly possible. In the Gnostic dream world, on the other hand, nonrecognition of reality is the first principle.’’

    Wisdom is the enemy.

  7. Robert Iasky says:

    Thanks for your great work Tony.

    I have a comment regarding Figure 1 in the Hansen’s Aug 1999 NASA Briefs. In that brief there are 2 graphs showing 5-year mean surface temperature for (a) the US and (b) global. The US temp graph clearly shows the 1930s hot weather, but in the Global temperature graph, the 1930s warming is only a blimp. This global temperature graph looks a lot like the current corrected or adjusted temperature record you’ve shown in previous presentations. Do you have an explanation for the inconsistency with the US and Global records in that brief? Is it the sparse Global weather stations, which leads to serious gridding artifacts? That would be the most reasonable explanation.

  8. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    I wonder what explanation (if any) the climate experts give (a) for “adjusting” the raw temperature readings, especially during the last 20 years when the “adjustments” keep getting bigger even as recording techniques presumably get better, and (b) for filling in “data” for places where there is no data.

    Not that I expect the rabidly partisan media to challenge our modern-day priests in lab coats.

Leave a Reply

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