Hidden behind climate policies, data from nonexistent temperature stations | Eastern North Carolina Now

“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”

By Katie Spence at The Epoch Times

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts July, August, and September will be hotter than usual. And for those who view warmer temperatures as problematic, that’s a significant cause for concern.
“Earth’s issuing a distress call,” said United Nations secretary-general António Guterres on March 19. “The latest State of the Global Climate report shows a planet on the brink.

“Fossil fuel pollution is sending climate chaos off the charts. Sirens are blaring across all major indicators: Last year saw record heat, record sea levels, and record ocean surface temperatures. … Some records aren’t just chart-topping, they’re chart-busting.”

President Joe Biden called the climate “an existential threat” in his 2023 State of the Union address. “Let’s face reality. The climate crisis doesn’t care if you’re in a red or a blue state.”

In his 2024 address he said, “I don’t think any of you think there’s no longer a climate crisis. At least, I hope you don’t.”

When recalling past temperatures to make comparisons to the present, and, more importantly, inform future climate policy, officials such as Mr. Guterres and President Biden rely in part on temperature readings from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).

The network was established to provide an “accurate, unbiased, up-to-date historical climate record for the United States,” NOAA states, and it has recorded more than 100 years of daily maximum and minimum temperatures from stations across the United States.

The problem, say experts, is that an increasing number of USHCN’s stations don’t exist anymore.

“They are physically gone—but still report data—like magic,” said Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist.

“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”

He calls them “ghost” stations.

Mr. Shewchuck said USHCN stations reached a maximum of 1,218 stations in 1957, but after 1990 the number of active stations began declining due to aging equipment and personnel retirements.

NOAA still records data from these ghost stations by taking the temperature readings from surrounding stations, and recording their average for the ghost station, followed by an “E,” for estimate.

The addition of the ghost station data means NOAA’s “monthly and yearly reports are not representative of reality,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute.

“If this kind of process were used in a court of law, then the evidence would be thrown out as being polluted.”

Critical Data

NOAA’s complete record of USHCN data is available on its website, making it a vital tool for scientists examining temperature trends since before the Industrial Revolution.

Jamal Munshi, emeritus professor at California’s Sonoma State University, wrote in a 2017 paper that because many of the stations in the USHCN, and their data, date back to the 1800s, they’ve been “widely used in the study of global warming.”

“The fear of anthropogenic global warming has generated a great interest in temperature trends such that even minute changes in the temperature record are scrutinized, and controversial implications for their effects on climate, extreme weather, and sea level rise are weighed against the cost of reducing emissions as a way of moderating these changes,” Mr. Munshi wrote.

“Energy and development policy around the world are impacted by these evaluations.”

Mr. Shewchuk said the USHCN data is the only long-term historical temperature data the United States has.

“In these days of apparent ‘climate crisis,’ you would think that maintaining actual temperature reporting stations would be a top priority—but they instead manufacture data for hundreds of non-existent stations. This is a bizarre way of monitoring a climate claimed to be an existential threat,” he said.

“Observed data is real. Altered and fabricated data is not real. Period.”

The website, noaacrappy, lists all of the ghost, or “zombie” stations, their location, how long they’ve been closed and then links to NOAA’s recordings.

Significantly, the map shows, not all of the stations used to interpolate temperature data are near the closed station. Thus, hypothetically, it’s possible that since Oklahoma City’s stations are all “zombies,” interpolation data is coming from as far away as Gainesville, Texas, which is more than 136 miles away, and Enid, Oklahoma, which is more than 100 miles away.

“For various reasons, NOAA feels the need to alter this data instead of fixing equipment problems they think exist,” Mr. Shewchuk said.

“Fixing temperature reporting stations is not rocket science. If we can go up to space to fix the Hubble telescope, we can surely come down to earth to fix a few thermometers.”

NOAA’s use of ghost temperature stations isn’t a recent phenomenon. In 2014, Mr. Watts raised the issue of ghost stations and bad data with NOAA’s chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center, Tom Peterson, and Texas’ state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, who confirmed there was an issue.

“Anthony – I just did a check of all Texas USHCN stations. Thirteen had estimates in place of apparently good data,” Mr. Nielsen-Gammon wrote in an email to Mr. Watts, according to a report on the latter’s website.
“It’s a bug, a big one. And as Zeke [Hausfather] did a cursory analysis Thursday night, he discovered it was systemic to the entire record, and up to 10 percent of stations have ‘estimated’ data spanning over a century.”

At the time, Mr. Watts reported on his climate website, “Watts Up With That,” that NOAA was taking the issue seriously and expected them to issue a fix shortly.
That fix never materialized. “They’re still doing it, and it’s even worse” he said.

NOAA’s Cooperative Observer Program, which includes the USHCN stations, is a network of daily weather observations taken by more than 8,500 volunteers, its webpage states.
Mr. Watts said the process for volunteers is “labor intensive.”

“It requires people to record high and low temperature, rainfall, the temperature at the time of observation, and do it at a very specific time, every day. And this has to then be recorded and sent to the National Climatic Data Center in Nashville, now known as the National Center for Environmental Information,” he said.

“Some of it’s still done on paper, some of it’s still done with touchtone over the telephone. It requires a lot of dedication and effort on the part of the observer. It’s a thankless job. And as a result, observers have been disappearing. A lot of them have left due to attrition by death. And then there’s no one to take on that job.”

Mr. Watts explained that when that happens, instead of subtracting the unmanned station from the overall number of USHCN stations, NOAA creates a number from surrounding stations.

“As a result, we end up with this milkshake of data that is basically a hot mess, and isn’t real in most cases,” Mr. Watts said.

Mr. Shewchuk said as a forensic consulting meteorologist, he produced expert witness reports for legal cases.

“I only used official ‘NOAA certified’ original weather data observations,” he said. “If I were to use ‘altered’ or ‘fabricated’ data, I would have been thrown out of court.”

NOAA’s Defense

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information confirmed to The Epoch Times that it uses “ghost” station data.
As an explanation, it said, “NOAA provides estimates for missing monthly temperature values in the USHCNv2.5 dataset. The approach to estimating missing values is described in the USHCN v2 overview paper, and values that are estimated are noted with a specific flag as described in the USHCN readme file.

“This flag is used to distinguish the observed values from estimated values. This attribute of providing estimated values to create uniform periods of record for monthly temperature stations is somewhat unique to the USHCN monthly data, which has provided estimates for several decades.

“While these estimates are provided as a service to users who may benefit from the data completeness provided by USHCN, NOAA itself does not directly use the estimates for closed stations (or for early periods before the observed record begins) in its own climate monitoring activities.”

Mr. Shewchuk didn’t buy NOAA’s response.

“It’s a shell game,” he said. “The ‘USHCN’ data is now included in a variety of larger datasets of various names, so now some can officially claim that ‘USHCN’ is not being used as a single entity.

“However, all the USHCN data is actually used for all historic climate studies because the USHCN data is the only data that goes back over 100 years. Without this historical data, we are climate-change blind.”

He added, “If NOAA doesn’t use USHCN data, then why do they use our tax monies to update the USHCN data files on a daily basis? Why do they use our tax monies to periodically go back and re-alter previously altered temperature data?”

The Bigger Issue

According to Mr. Watts, ghost stations are problematic but are only part of a much bigger problem.

He explained that several different entities—such as the European Commission’s Copernicus, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Berkeley’s Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST), and NOAA—publish monthly and yearly climate data and advertise themselves as having “independent data.”
“That is a lie,” Mr. Watts said about the independent data claim.

“The USHCN data set and the [new] nClimDiv climate division data set [which uses the same stations and has the same problems] comes from the Cooperative Observer [Program] in the United States.

“Similarly, in the rest of the world, there is a Cooperative Observer [Program] that suffers from the same problems of attrition and incompetence. And it’s called the GHCN; the Global Historical Climatology Network.
“All these different entities out there, like NOAA, GISS, BEST, all the entities I listed, use the same data from GHCN. And they all apply their own set of ’special sauce' adjustments to create what they believe is true.

“It’s almost like each of these entities is creating their version of the real, true God. You know, it’s like a religion. They’re using different mathematical and statistical techniques to produce their version of climate reality.

“And it all goes back to the same original, badly-sited, badly-maintained ghost station dataset around the world. USHCN and GHCN are the same stuff. So, there is no independent temperature dataset. It’s bogus that anyone claims this.”

Mr. Shewchuk said the warming the earth has experienced since the 1800s is much less than has been reported, but even if it weren’t, warmer temperatures are natural—not manmade—and not a cause for concern.

“We are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age because the Bray and Eddy solar cycles are still in their warming phases,” he said. “[Carbon dioxide] is a greenhouse gas, but its contribution to today’s warming is trivial. Whenever someone asks me how much ’man-made‘ CO2 is increasing Earth’s temperature, I respond, ’Does the growth of a new eyelash increase your weight?’

“There is no climate emergency. In fact, all measures of severe weather are decreasing—even tornadoes and hurricanes. Furthermore, global warming (at least the little that there is) and increasing CO2 are good for life on Earth. History clearly shows us that life thrives during warm periods (like the Medieval Warm Period) and suffers during cool periods (like the Little Ice Age).

He pointed out that even NOAA and NASA report that increased CO2 has “greened the planet” and increased plant growth, which has benefited food production.

“We should celebrate CO2—not demonize it.”


Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )


( April 12th, 2024 @ 6:26 pm )
Who is more likely to be crazy? A loony left internet troll who thinks his opinions are "Fact" and "truth" or twenty some prominent scientists from around the world who are interviewed in that documentary and explain the facts behind their scientific opinions? But he is content calling a bunch of people a whole lot smarter than him "crazy".
Big Bob said:
( April 12th, 2024 @ 4:29 pm )
No thanks bud. I stay away from crazy, present company excluded, of course.
( April 12th, 2024 @ 9:39 am )
Little Bobbie (a.k.a. Chicken Little on steroids), if you would just watch that British TV documentary, you would learn from prominent scientists that CO2 and the greenhouse effect have nothing whatsoever to do with the current natural warm period.
Big Bob said:
( April 11th, 2024 @ 2:08 pm )
CT (MAGA Exxon)- You are right about the earth natural heating and cooling cycle but that cycle is being altered. However,
Your whole argument hinges on the notion fossil fuel emissions have no impact. Pretty big elephant to ignore. That's the reason the crap you post on the subject is...crap.

BTW fossil fuel extraction emits methane a much more potent greenhouse gas. A lot of it.
( April 11th, 2024 @ 1:39 pm )
Here is another good one. When a BBC reporter tried to lecture Guyana's president over "climate change" as applied to Guyana's new oil and gas reserves, Guyana's president shut him down:
( April 11th, 2024 @ 10:00 am )
During the CLimategate email scandal, it was revealed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK had obtained custody of the UK's historical temperature records and that those numbers had been "adjusted" as part of their studies. University officials later acknowledged that they did not know if original unadjusted copies of those historical records even still existed. This is just one more example of the manipulation of data for ideological purpuses that is ongoing with the climate alarmists.
( April 10th, 2024 @ 5:16 pm )
FACT: The Earth has been in a natural multi-centurry warming cycle since the end of the last natural multi-century cooling cycle, known to climatologists as the Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum, in the 19th century.

FACT: These multi-century warming and cooling cycles have happened throughout Earth's history and there is no evidence that changes in CO2 has caused any of them.

FACT: The last multi-century warming cycle, the Medieval Warm Period, was warmer than today, and civilization flousished with no harmful impacts recorded from the warm period.

FACT: The longest and hottest warming period known was the Holocene Maximum which was much warmer than today. The Holocene Maximum coincided in part with the rise of ancient Greek civilization, and nothing in ancient Greek writings suggest any harmful impact on humans or the environment.

FACT: Bobbie's opinion that fossil fuel emissions are connected with the current natural warm period comes from a theory espoused by a Swedish physicist in the 1890s, which got no traction in science at the time. After this forgotten and discredited theory was mentioned in an article in the British magazine "The New Scientist" in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher's government recognized its political usefulness in her battles with the coal miners unions and the Arab oil sheiks, and she put a lot of government money into promoting it for political purposes. The UN later picked it up as useful for their purposes.

Bobbie is deep down the rabbit hole of the globalist agenda, and is likely on the payroll of either Soros or Schwab or another of their ilk.

For the REAL science on "climate change / global warming" please watch the British TV documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was broadcast nationally on the UK's Channel 4 and the many prominent scientists interviewed in that documentary which can be watched at this link: www.youtube.com
( April 10th, 2024 @ 4:28 pm )
Given their manipulation of data revealed in the Climategate email dump, this is not at all surprising. The climate alarmists will fudge whatever they have to in order to push their narrative and agenda. "Hide the decline" as they said in those Climategate emails.

Another good example is looking at where their significant increases in temperature come from, and those are the weather stations that in years past were in rural areas that have now bcome urbanized. The increased temperatures come from the change in surroundings, not "climate change".

One symbol of climate alarmist manipulation was Michael Mann's hockety stick chart, which was a major exhibit in one of the UN reports but disappeared thereafter. What happened was that a Canadian mining engineer wondered about Mann's chart and asked for the supporting data, which Mann refused to give him (a suspicious move in science itself). The mining engineer then tried to go through other sources at the university where Mann taught to obtain the supporting data. Finally a graduate student who had worked on the project gave him the website address with all the raw data. The mining engineer was then able to see that Mann had cherry picked data to come up with a predetermined conclusion and blew the whistle on it.

Mann has been tied to at least one other major fabrication, a study showing rising temperatures in Anarctica. Mann's study was based on temperature averages, but on that one the raw data was readily available, and it blew up Mann's theory. All but one of the reporting stations had maintained a steady temperature, and what threw the average off was a single reporting station, and that changed dramatically between two years. It turned out that the siting of that reporting station had been moved at the time the readings changed dramatically. The old location of that station had consistently had cooler readings and the new location, which kept the same name, consistently higher readings. So Mann's whole study was garbagte.

Mann once taught in Virginia, and the state Attorney General had once opened an investigation on him for obtaining grant money based on bogus studies. Thereafter, Mann moved to another state.
Big Bob said:
( April 10th, 2024 @ 12:56 pm )
Fact: The earth is heating due to fossil fuel emissions.
The implications of that fact are up for debate and people all over the world do so everyday. CT and his opposing views included.

Unfortunately, he is either a paid influencer or is deep down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, which makes anyone who chooses that route, look like an idiot.
Take your pick.
( April 10th, 2024 @ 10:13 am )
Remember, the climate alarmists are unique in science by refusing to debate their positions. Real science is ALWAYS open to debate. Albert Einstein was always willing to and did debate his theory of relativity. Climate alarmists are more science fiction than real science.

Also remember the Climategate emails. These revealed that the climate alarmists in the scientific community were a bunch of plotters and schemers working to paper over whatever they had to ("hide the decline") in order to push their theory, and actively working to deplatform scientists with opposing views. These conmen and like the mafia.

It is the propaganda media that largely keeps this globalist scam alive because they refuse to tell both sides.

Insider reveals heavy partisan political bias at Natonal Public Radio Rant & Rave, Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics UK's National Health Service report nukes "transgender medicine", gender transition


Back to Top