Raw NOAA data reveals more than we could have imagined

Regarding the mainstream narrative … whether one is a denier or supplier … one has to admit that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been the official doctrine of the global mainstream for years now, and that anyone expressing doubts will experience ridicule, censorship, shunning, or worse. Likewise, just about everyone would have to admit that they are tired of hearing about global warming, and that it is too complicated, and that they are thus mostly trusting their preferred sources.

The mainstream narrative is actually built on data that has been heavily revised by a tiny handful of climate scientists, but what if we could graph the raw data ourselves? Shouldn’t someone look at the raw data? —just as a sanity check?

Why don’t we just do it ourselves right now? Then we won’t have to trust other sources so much.

Once we are done with our analysis, I will show you how I did it and how I got the data from NOAA, and I will explore the wider implications, for the past, present and future of humanity—it’s that epic.

We will look at the raw data from NOAA for 1919 through 2017. We will only look at stations that have existed for all of those years, which is about 629 stations. These are all US stations, but of course, the mainstream narrative is that global warming is happening in the US too, so US stations are sufficient.

We will start at 1919 for multiple reasons. One reason is simply to get a 100-year analysis (99 actually). Another reason is so that we can cut out the increase before that because, back then, we were still coming out of the little ice, which was thus a natural increase that occurred when CO2 was much lower, and which is thus irrelevant because we are only trying to determine if global warming is man-made (anthropogenic). We also cut out those earlier years because there were fewer stations then.

We would have started in the 1930’s if we wanted to ensure that we excluded the emergence from the solar-induced Litte Ice Age, but let’s go back to 1919 to include more years where CO2 was lower, which gives an advantage to AGW, but if we get inconclusive results at the end we can reconsider whether we should start in the 1930’s.

Consider that any trend we uncover will artificially be slightly skewed toward warming more than it would have been if cities hadn’t grown outwards and enveloped some stations. This phenomenon gives an advantage to AGW, so if we get inconclusive results at the end, we can reconsider whether to adjust for growing cities (e.g. maybe exclude those stations).

We will use daily averages for each station so that the number of readings per day and times of day do not skew our results.

First, let’s look at the increase in CO2 for this same period:

As we can see, atmospheric CO2 went up about 30% during this period, and didn’t start rising very rapidly until about 1955. Next we will look at the percentage of nights per year below 20 degrees:

As we can see, it gets below 20 degrees less often, so nights may have become warmer. Let’s check the average minimum daily temperatures as well:

We see that the average daily minimum temperature went up, so thus far, it is looking like it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years. If the percent of days above 90 has also gone up, and if the average daily maximum has also gone up, then that would be pretty conclusive. Let’s look at those next:

Percent of days above 90 and average maximum temperature both went down instead of up! The question of a global increase for the last 100 years is thus inconclusive so far, but one thing we can already conclude is that the highs are lower and the lows are higher, which means that temperature has gotten more mild over the last 100 years. Just to be sure, let’s graph the magnitude of the daily temperature range:

As we already knew at this point, the average daily temperature range has gotten much smaller, so temperature has definitely gotten more mild over the last 100 years—or has it? To some extent, cities would trap heat during the day and release it at night, so that would raise the nighttime temperatures for some stations over time as cities encroached on those stations. Perhaps that could explain the entire nighttime increase, but let’s not adjust for that., thus giving an advantage to AGW, and see what happens.

What about the overall warming trend? We can’t just eye-ball it given the conflicting nighttime and daytime trends, so we will have to look at the average mean temperature to be sure:

Hmm … in spite of expanding cities artificially adding additional warming over the years, the trend is actually down. Also, these temperature graphs don’t look anything like the revised temperatures in the graphs presented by the experts and the media.

In spite of the two advantages we gave AGW: 1) starting before the 1930’s, and 2) keeping the elevated temperatures from stations enveloped by cities; it has gotten cooler—not warmer.

Although it was difficult to find and use this data, tens of millions could have performed this same analysis at any time over the last 30 years … so why didn’t they? Why is it such a big secret?

The raw NOAA data is actually only one of many ways to falsify AGW. For example, there is the raw satellite data, which matches the raw land data, but which contradicts the revised land data, and which thus contradicts the models. The satellite data was thus also revised to conform to the models a few years ago.

Then there is the fact that the CO2 increases in the ice cores came after the temperature increases, which had caused the oceans to release CO2. (The oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.) However, those increases in CO2 did not cause further temperature increases, which would have caused the oceans to release more CO2—in a runaway greenhouse effect—if the models were correct.

Let’s mention a third falsification—just for fun. Sea-level rise has not accelerated in the last 100 years. Oceans have been rising for 20,000 years, and have been rising very slowly for the last few thousand years, and since we started measuring them, the rate of rise is linear. The rate of rise has not accelerated at all, but it would have if the increase in CO2 were having any effect on sea-level. There is some revised data that attempts to manufacture an accelerating rise, but once again, the raw data proves otherwise.

Any work—no matter how brilliant—if it was built on data that has been revised to fit the models, is thus invalid. Garbage in—garbage out.

How could anyone who cares about the environment let some easily falsified propaganda turn a non-issue like CO2 into the dominant narrative that is crowding out the many real environmental problems?

Given the many times Climate scientists and the media have been caught lying, if anyone wanted to argue against the raw data and be taken seriously by honest people, then they would first have to show how they have always been very transparent about the raw data. They would also have to show how they have always claimed that the lack of transparency and the evidence such as Climategate prove that the whole establishment has conspired to subvert the scientific process. They would have to also show how they were willing to contradict the mainstream narrative even if that meant losing friends and opportunities—a real conflict of interest.

Yeah … that’s what I thought.

We just proved that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud being perpetrated by the global mainstream, which thus proves that someone has the ability to keep an epic truth out of the entire global mainstream to such an extent that junk science can dominate the global mainstream narrative instead. If that someone can do this, how many other epic cover ups are being perpetrated across the entire global mainstream?

I got the raw NOAA data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd_hcn.tar.gz, and I graphed it with simple software created by Tony Heller for this purpose, so I owe him about 90% of the credit for this article. (I did have to modify the input data by writing a program to filter out those stations (files) that did not exist for the entire period. Each file contains the history for one station.)

You can find Tony’s work at his web site. I discovered Tony through his YouTube channel.

I decided that I needed to write this article before his site and his YouTube channel are purged because, as should now be clear, Tony Heller is an existential threat to the agenda of the globalist insider elite. (Don’t take this as a blanket endorsement of Tony Heller. Although his work on AGW is world-class, he does get things wrong in some areas of politics, history, and economics.)

About the Author