NOAA fudges the numbers to turn a January cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

More climate manipulation: NOAA fudges the numbers to turn a January cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Adjusting the numbers might be justified in certain situations, but NOAA never explains why, and the adjustments they impose always create the illusion of a warming trend, even if the raw numbers say otherwise. If the adjustments were honest, I would expect them to move the numbers up and down much more randomly. That these adjustments only go one way — in favor of global warming — either suggests they are unconsciously allowing their biases to influence their work, or they are intentionally allowing their biases to influence their work.

Either way, their work is meaningless and untrustworthy, and should be ignored as less than worthless.



  • jan stephens

    I suppose the acidification of the oceans is all miscalculation also. Since it hasnt happened to this extent for millions of years and is a threat to sea life and thus food for the world’s population. Is the info wrong on this too?

  • Rock Gile

    The Ice Caps are indeed melting but that’s no justification for misreporting or fabricating the facts to support the hypothesis of climate change. I think there is sufficient evidence for the sine wave fluctuations in the Earths Climate over thousands of years. The scientists on the left seem to be the main culprits of fudging the facts to support their own scientific bias. Science is supposed to be un-biased. Just report the facts and let the scientific community at large make the final decisions on what the facts support. That’s what science does in Journals.Puts the facts out there for scientific review. When the governmental agencies get involved too much the facts seem to almost always gets skewed on way or another.

  • Windlord

    Ocean acidification can be caused by many things, least of which would be current global air temperatures and CO2 concentrations. I would be more inclined to look toward underwater volcanoes, changes in the Pacific Decadal flow, and/or polution. The change in global temps have flatlined over the last 15 years and the rise in CO2 would necessarily have to be far more significant than at present. The oceans are huge bodies and require hundreds of years of exposure to the various forcings to make any significant changes.

  • Robert, I agree, completely with you assessment of the manipulation of data sets by NOAA/NASA to skew these toward sustained funding and justification for support of what I call, ‘The Gore Agenda’. Your perspectives re ‘freedom’, free enterprise and commercialization of space are refreshing. Keep up the good work!

  • Thank you for the kind words.

    Isn’t it sad that today in the United States it is “refreshing” to stand for freedom? One would think this would be the standard to which everyone believes. Unfortunately it is not.

  • Gene Vatow

    Enjoyed your appearance on coast to coast tonight. Your insight and take on todays issues is very refreshing. Government should definitely butt out of most scientific endeavors, as it tends to politicize everything it touches…

  • Max

    Acidfication of the oceans is impossible. If you were to place all of the known carbon on the planet in the ocean, There still would not be enough to reach an acid state. The pH would still be above seven. The calcium carbonate on the ocean floor is as much as 2000 feet thick. That’s a lot of antacid! Perform this experiment, hold your breath. As the carbonic acid builds up in your bloodstream, Does it cause your bones to melt and your teeth to fall out?
    On the other hand, if you remove all carbon from the air all life on the planet would die. Then the lightning from thunderstorms would convert the nitrogen in the air into Nitric acid and fill the oceans. (They like to blame this natural event on runoff of farmers fertilizing their farms). Volcanoes are a large source of carbon, but by far the largest is the sun. Last spring it was declared for the first time ever 400 ppm in the Arctic of carbon dioxide. This occurrence just happened to be a coincidence with the largest solar storm of the year! The northern lights were spectacular across the entire northern hemisphere. Billions of tons of methane and ammonia and other gases were oxidized In our upper atmosphere. Perhaps a mathematician can calculate how much water was added to the oceans that day.

  • Joe Revell

    Robert, I just heard you on Coast. I am trying to figure something out. I don’t believe everything I read, so please help me out. A USA Today article that appeared on 06Jan2014, was about the solar magnetic pole shift. link: they quote a guy from Stanford and Alex Young, associate director for the heliophysics science division at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. They say the magnetic poles are in the process of changing and that the North pole has already switched polarity and the “South Pole is trying to catch up”. I understand this happens every 11 years. Does N. mean + or -. and if this article is true can both poles have the same polarity for a period of time? Another question please sir, I am in an electrical course at a tech school. I have ran across something that says that a regular Boy Scout magnetic compass, whatever OK. They say that a regular compass needle points to South, and they just paint the other end of the needle red. Help!

  • See this post:

    And this post:

    It is not unusual for the two solar hemispheres to flip polarity at different times, which means that, yes, the two poles can have the same polarity for a period of time.

  • Jwing

    I lived in Longmont, CO for several years and my next door neighbor was a newly minted atmospheric science PHD from UNC Chapel. Anyway, he worked for NOAA in Boulder and he was a true believer. I have a master of science and asked him about the Henry’s Constant of CO2 and the CO2 sink of the oceans. Guess what??? He had no idea what I was talking about. He did not know what the colligative property of water was or what Henry’s constant measured. That was all I needed to know. Otherwise, he was a nice guy.

  • When you get politics involved, hello Al Gore!. It is a wonder that the right information had a chance to surface.
    Thanks for programs like Coast to Coast and Ground Zero, put that information out there for John and Jane Q. Public.
    Thank You.
    Orlando, FL.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Nearly a decade ago, I attended a science writers workshop at NCAR in Boulder, in which we learned about climate processes and the certainty of AGW. I listened attentively and patiently to all the presentations. Then, at the end, they held a roundtable discussion for the attendees with the resident scientists. At one point, I commented at how disturbed I was by the term “settled science” and suggested how destructive and potentially dangerous it was to the pursuit of truth. I added that scientists and journalists should always be society’s biggest skeptics, requiring overwhelming evidence before even beginning to reach any conclusion. My comments were met mostly with either blank stares or hostile expressions — but with a couple of subtle nods. Such continues to be the state of climate science.

    By the way, one of the presentations included a graph of solar activity as reported during the 20th century. It registered a cumulative 0.5 percent increase over that time period. When I asked if there was any connection between that increase and warming, I was told it was coincidental, or perhaps it contributed to the temperature forcing driven mostly by the rise in atmospheric CO2. I found it interesting, however, that the change from 280 parts per million pre-industrial to nearly 400 PPM today represents a change of only about one hundreth of one percent. In other words, the change in solar forcing was 500 times larger. I returned home wondering if our scientific community suffers from a forest-for-the-trees deficiency.

    On and off, I covered climate science for 15 years. In all that time, when I talked with the modelers — the ones who developed all the models that failed to predict the recent warming pause — they were certain that their projections were accurate and reliable. Meanwhile, the observationalists, the ones who collected the data, kept telling me, essentially, they weren’t seeing it.

    So, here we are. Political intimidation has stifled independent and, yes, skeptical voices in climate science, thereby damaging its credibility so badly it could take a generation or more to recover.

  • What do you make of the fact that the North Pole of the sun’s magnetic field is now heading towards the neutral zone once again instead of the opposite way?

  • Southwest Weather, Inc. is “The Climate Busters”

    Looking for climatology based on science instead of political and social agendas? If so, then we welcome you to “The Climate Busters!” We will be posting data and research dealing with all aspects of climatology and expose the myth of anthropogenic global warming.

    Here at Climate Busters, our mission revolves around four main areas:
    1.Exposing the carbon dioxide global warming myth.
    2.Explaining the real causes for climate change
    3.Exactly how we feel the climate will change
    4.The economic ramifications of climate change

    The Climate Busters will go into depth in all of these areas giving our clients the information they need to prepare and profit in relation to the coming climatic changes. Changes that we believe will be in full force long before this decade ends.

    This is an exciting time in relation to the weather and the climate of the earth. We invite you to join us on the journey!



    One solar climate mechanism/connection theory which has much merit in my opinion, is as follows:

    A BRIEF OVERVIEW. At times of low solar irradiance the amounts of sea ice in the Nordic Sea increase, this ice is then driven south due to the atmospheric circulation (also due to weak solar conditions) creating a more northerly air flow in this area.(-NAO) This sea ice then melts in the Sub Polar Atlantic, releasing fresh water into the sub- polar Atlantic waters, which in turn impedes the formation of NADW, which slows down the thermohaline circulation causing warm air not to be brought up from the lower latitudes as far north as previous while in lessening amounts.

    This perhaps can be one of the contributing solar/climate connection factors which brought about previous abrupt N.H. cool downs during the past.

    This makes much sense to me.


    To elaborate on the above, when the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum condition an overall reduction takes place in solar spectral irradiance, namely in UV light (wavelengths less then 400 nm). The shorter the wavelength, the MUCH greater the reduction.

    UV light reduction likely will cause ocean heat content and ocean surface temperatures to drop, due to the fact that UV light in the range of 280 nm-400nm penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50-100 meters. A reduction in UV (ultra violet) light then should have a profound effect on the amount of energy entering the ocean surface waters from the sun extending down to 50-100 meters in depth, resulting in cooler ocean temperatures.

    This ties into what was said in the above in that if ocean waters in high latitudes such as the Nordic Sea, were to be subject to cooling the result would be much more sea ice which could impede the strength of the thermohaline circulation promoting substantial N.H. cooling.

    Adding to this theory is fairly strong evidence that a decrease in UV light will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation (which should cause more clouds, precipitation and snow cover for the N.H.), due to changes in ozone distribution in a vertical/horizontal sense which would cause the temperature contrast between the polar areas of the stratosphere and lower latitude areas of the stratosphere to lesson, during prolonged solar minimum periods. Ultra Violet light being likely the most significant solar factor affecting ozone concentrations ,although not the only solar factor.

    This could then set up a more -NAO, (high pressure over Greenland) which would promote a more Northerly flow of air over the Nordic Sea, bringing the sea ice there further South.


    A reduction of the solar wind during a prolonged solar minimum event would cause more galactic cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere which would promote more aerosol formation thus more cloud nucleation. The result more clouds higher albedo, cooler temperatures.

    Compounding this would be a weaker geo magnetic field which would allow more galactic cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere , while perhaps causing excursions of the geo magnetic poles to occur in that they would be in more southern latitudes concentrating incoming galactic cosmic rays in these southern latitudes where more moisture would be available for the cosmic rays to work with, making for greater efficiency in the creation of clouds.


    MILANKOVITCH CYCLES overall favor N.H. cooling and an increase in snow cover over N.H high latitudes during the N.H summers due to the fact that perihelion occurs during the N.H. winter (highly favorable for increase summer snow cover), obliquity is 23.44 degrees which is at least neutral for an increase summer N.H. snow cover, while eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is currently at 0.0167 which is still elliptical enough to favor reduced summertime solar insolation in the N.H. and thus promote more snow cover.

    In addition the present geographical arrangements of the oceans versus continents is very favorable for glaciation.


    High latitude major volcanic eruptions correlate to prolonged solar minimum periods which translates to stratospheric warming due to an increase in SO2 particles while promoting more lower troposphere cooling.

    One theory of many behind the solar/volcanic connection is that MUONS, a by product of galactic cosmic rays can affect the calderas of certain volcanoes by changing the chemical composition of the matter within the silica rich magma creating aerosols which increase pressure in the magma chamber and hence lead to an explosive eruption.

    Muon densities increase more in higher latitudes at times of weak solar magnetic activity, which is why volcanic activity in the higher latitudes will be affected more by this process.

    These four mechanisms make a strong case for a solar /climate connection in my opinion, and if the prolonged solar minimum meets the criteria I have mentioned going forward and the duration is long enough I expect global cooling to be quite substantial going forward.


    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

    IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.


    A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.

    B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.

    C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.

    Robert heard you on Coast to Coast I like your approach to the current climate situation. Above are my thoughts. take care

  • I am glad about the extreme cold for the U.S.A in that it weakens the global warming theory, due to the fact the cold is due to a more meridional jet stream pattern which is tied to solar activity(ozone concentration changes and distributions),and not the lessening amounts of Arctic Sea Ice due to global warming, as is the AGW theory view of matters as being responsible for this type of pattern.

    In a side note the lower then normal amounts of Arctic Sea Ice can be tied to the AMO being in it’s warm phase.


    My argument is two fold in that mainstream science does not appreciate just how variable the sun can be, and does not accept the many solar/climate SECONDARY connections that are a result of this variability.

    In addition the sun has yet to approach the criteria I have called for on a constant basis (which I have sent on many previous post) to have A MAJOR climate impact thus far.

    In addition solar activity from 1850-2005 has been to constant to manifest itself into any big climate impacts. This however could change this decade as solar activity has been running much below normal post 2005 , despite the recent maximum of solar cycle 24. This maximum should end soon and time will tell how quiet the sun becomes going forward.

    The other climate areas which are not given enough attention to when it comes to solving the climate puzzle in my view are the earth’s magnetic field strength, past history (Maunder Minimum) which shows solar/climate connections, Milankovitch cycles combined with current solar activity to get an overall impact, the beginning state of the climate which can give an entirely different climatic result even if the same climate forces are applied.

    Robert this and the previous post I just sent you sums up my take on the climate.

    I think once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends ,combined with the prolonged low solar activity we have had post 2005, that if the sun becomes very quiet once again, that at that time the sun wilt start to exert itself in a more significant way on the climate.

    The first sign would be the atmospheric circulation index or AO( arctic oscillation) evolving more and more into a negative phase in response to quiet solar conditions. The AO was showing signs of this during the very quiet solar years 2008-2010.

  • Daily Update:

    Four regions are recorded with the overall area increasing. Region 1967 developing into another large region in the south. The shutdown in the north has had consequences, the north pole is looking to head back towards the neutral zone instead of building strength like other cycles.

    The above is from Layman Sunspot Site, what do you make of the above. I just mentioned it on a previous post.

  • Cotour

    For me the dead giveaway is how the terminology has changed over the past several years as it has been revealed that the science has been manipulated in order to install a mode of control over the people, specifically in the United States.

    It has gone from Human caused global warming, to just plain old global warming, with the underpinnings of the imagery already installed in the subconscious of the public and then finally out of desperation it is labeled as “climate change” , which actually just describes the on going condition of earths atmosphere. The climate is always changing, who can argue with that?

    I enjoyed hearing you lay it all out on Coast last night and in the conversation Mr. Noorey brought out that the real honest conversation should be about pollution in general, which I totally agree with. But how can you quantify and tax pollution in general. “Science” driven by a pre determined result is agenda. And still the president presses the agenda to the public by insisting that “climate change” is real. Who could argue with him?

  • wodun

    Let’s not conflate pollution with global warming.

  • Max

    I not only enjoyed hearing you on coast-to-coast again last night, I actually got to talk to you! I was so excited about someone telling the truth, and so nervous, that I came off sounding like an idiot. Science is not about what you believe, or what you feel, but what you can prove with facts and data. When the president says that the science is settled by executive order, it reminds me of religious declarations of the past by Popes and religious leaders which requires only fath and belief to be true. Unfortunately, this global warming religion is being taught in schools under the title of science. A magical layer of carbon dioxide keeps us warm at night. At 400 ppm, carbon dioxide makes up less than one half of one 10th of 1% of the atmosphere! 92% of the energy that comes into the earth’s atmosphere does not resonate with carbon dioxide. (This percentage is extremely generous because of the inclusion of water vapor which is estimated at an average of 3%, or 30,000 ppm) The next miracle occurs when this magical carbon dioxide molecule radiates heat for an entire night?(Heated carbon dioxide when released into the atmosphere retains its heat for only a few seconds before becoming room temperature) The blanket effect is a myth, If you compare carbon dioxide to a thread 1/64 in diameter in the atmospheric blanket (the size of fishing line) The thread would reoccur once in every 2500 threads or the equivalent of parallel threads 39 inches apart !!! (Is the hole in that theory too big to see?)
    Last night I pointed out that six out of our eight planets radiate more heat into their surrounding space than they receive from the sun. Their common denominator is a thick atmosphere. The four gas giants are as hot as the photosphere of the sun under their atmosphere. (At 50,000°, Jupiter is five times hotter than the surface of the sun) Venus has 90 Earth atmospheres and is hotter Then Mercury’s Sun side! (Mercury’s average temperature is around 200°F)
    The earth and the moon are said to be in the “Green Zone”. It is well documented that half of the energy the earth receives is reflected back into space. This is why our temperatures are comfortable when the moon is 250° in the sunlight. And yet when the sun goes down and all heat stops, the temperature on the Moon drops to 300° below zero but the earth drops 20°? 30°? The average temperature on earth is 55°, and the average temperature on the moon is 50° below zero… I would remind you were both in the green zone. When A weather balloon is sent up it records a drop in temperature of 5.4° for every thousand feet it rises to the troposphere. Now apply the facts to Occam’s razor And you will realize why the atmosphere is warmest where it is thickest at the equator and coldest at the poles where The atmosphere is Thinnest. The evidence is overwhelming, it’s time to change the model!

  • Max

    PS. If the sun is the source of all heat as it is the source of all light, then it stands to reason that the place on earth that receives the most light would also be the hottest place on earth… The sun over Antarctica has not set in over three months, and with an average height of over 10,000 feet, it is closest to the sun with the thinnest atmosphere. Didn’t they just set a new heat record recently?
    Thank you behind the black for the forum, I’ve never done this before.

  • Glad to have you. And I enjoyed hearing from you on C2C last night.

  • Cotour

    The acidification of the oceans is a reasonable associated subject, related to pollution in general. Just like there is no one driver of “climate change” there are many reasonable issues to be considered in relation to how earths population moves into the future on the planet that we all work and live upon.

  • Jwing

    I hear you, Phil. It’s as if they are in a cult and no matter what you say they can’t or won’t leave. Their future careers are tied to saying the party line. It exists in medicine, environmental engineering, mechanical and civil engineering et al………….
    Academia has been fully taken over by Marxists, Maoists and Socialists who despise free market capitalism.

  • t-dub

    Robert, loved hearing you on Coast and am now reading here. The truth has no agenda . . .

    Beware of prophets seeking profits . . .

  • joe

    Do the real actual numbers even exist anymore?

  • Robert this is Sal. I would appreciate any feedback on what I presented to you. Positive or negative. Take Care.

  • Honestly, I can’t give you feedback. You use terms (for example “neutral zone”) that I have never heard any solar scientist use, and thus have no idea what you are referring to.

    If you want to get my take on the solar cycle and what it might mean for the future, do a search on Behind the Black for “sunspots” or “solar cycle”. You will get a list of my monthly updates on the solar cycle. This is the most recent: Yippee! Solar scientists finally get it right! From these updates you will get a good idea where I stand.

  • Robert if you look at my post above you will see a chart which shows how weak the Northern Polar Field Strength of the sun is. If you look it is heading toward zero, when it should be heading in the opposite direction for this stage of the sunspot cycle.

    This tells me solar activity going forward should be rather weak.

    I hope with the aid of the chart you may be able to comment on your take. Thanks.

  • Thanks for your information. I am looking at it.

  • Max

    I’ve been trying to catch up with the solar debate and the influence the sun has on the earth. I can see why there is no consensus since the data varies widely. Observation with “cause and effect” should give us the answers. And yet with all our modern equipment the farmers Alamac is still correct more often than science. (They base their predictions on the 11 year sunspot cycle)
    The suns output varies by less than 1%. The variables must be larger to form accurate conclusions. (Four instance no evidence here for the cause of our ice ages.) If you perform a comparison between nighttime(Entropy being 300° below zero, like the shadow side of the moon) with no solar influence, to the daytime temperatures, You will find that the Sun’s influence is less than 20% of the overall energy package. (The low of the night, to the high of the day is the total of the Sun’s energy influence) The cause of 80% of our heat is unaccounted for. For the answer, One only needs to look at the six other planets to realize what actually causes atmospheric heating.
    Has anyone noticed that the difference between the suns core, The photosphere surface, And the Corona sphere Violates the first three laws of thermodynamics? Even Wikipedia now points out the problems with the current solar models. The truth behind our son being electric can no longer be ignored by science. The existence of nano flares heating the chromosphere, and the lack of neutrinos Is causing the debate to get heated. Please ignore faith-based science, insist on facts. And the truth will set you free…

Leave a Reply

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