NOAA’s US Climate Extremes Index Is Fraudulent

NOAA’s US Climate Extreme’s Index (CEI) shows that the area of the US affected by unusually hot weather has increased steadily to record highs since 1980.


High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

The graph below shows just the daily highs.


The NOAA graph is not consistent with their raw data, which shows no such increase in the area of the US affected by unusually hot afternoon temperatures.


I overlaid the actual NOAA data on the NOAA CEI graph below.  The graphs were similar until about 1980, when the CEI graph sharply diverged from the underlying data.


What could have caused this divergence?  The primary factor is that the amount of fabricated data used by NOAA has increased since 1980 from 12% to 47%. If NOAA doesn’t have station data during a particular month, they simply make the data up for that station. For some reason, they have been losing huge amounts of data in recent years, and now almost half of their data is fake.

2016-04-20071252 I believe that they are losing cooler rural stations, and are using modeled data from hotter urban stations to fill in the missing data.

It also should be noted that this is not a temperature threshold issue. We see the same pattern if the threshold is set to 35C.


The CEI is a classic example of US Government junk climate science. They have created a fake warming trend which is the exact opposite of reality.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to NOAA’s US Climate Extremes Index Is Fraudulent

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Tony! Another great post!

    When the best sites available say one thing, and the infilled numbers (I can’t honestly call it “data”) say something very different, then “Houston, we have a problem!” Granted, if the discrepancy were a one time occurrence, or if there were some rational response to its being pointed out, we could plausibly think that it was simple honest error. These unexplained alterations to the data have gone on so long, so extensively, and so uniformly supportive of the warming hypothesis, that I do not see any believable explanation other than conscious fraud.

    I am at a loss to understand how warmists can read your posts and still support their cult so doggedly.

  2. We did a Flood Control Plan for Houston 30 years ago…
    Wimpy suckups did not push….
    PE brains have screwed up once again.

  3. willys36 says:

    Climatology is closely akin to Astrology. The only difference I can see is Astrological predictions are vastly more accurate than Climatological ones.

  4. Don says:

    Look! Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. Or: Bread and circuses. IOW, the useless MSM has no interest in important stories, and is in fact itself all in for the AGW lie, aka ‘The Media-Government Complex’.

  5. Andy DC says:

    It takes some awfully big testicles to present such obvious fraud as fact! These so-called climate scientists need to be immediately stripped of their funding and fired from their jobs at the very least. Hopefully that will be one of President Trump’s top priorities. The establishment and their media lapdogs hates and fears him for very good reason!

  6. ntesdorf says:

    1980 is when all governments flicked the Global Warming / Climate Change alarm switch to all systems go, After that, the past got cooler and the present and future got warmer (in the computers)

  7. Jason Calley says:

    Hey cdqgfj! Serious question for you, no tricks… Do you think that ice loss started in the 1980s?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s