Surprise: 96% Of NOAA Weather Stations Improperly Cited

I won’t argue that the Earth isn’t in a warm period now. The problem, though, is that so much of the data the climate cult uses to make their case is improper

Study: NOAA Advances Bogus Heat Data Based on Collection Practices — 96% Corrupted

A study that investigated the placement of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) temperature stations found that 96 percent of the facilities used to measure heat failed to meet the agency’s own “uncorrupted placement” standards.

Research for the study shows the 96 percent corruption is because the stations’ measurements are tainted by the effects of urbanization – or heat produced because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects.

The Heartland Institute compiled the report using satellite and in-person surveys of NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperatures in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, who directed the study, said is the study announcement distributed to the press. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

“NOAA’s ‘Requirements and Standards for [National Weather Service] Climate Observations‘ instructs that temperature data instruments must be “over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station and at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface,’” the press release said. “And that ‘all attempts will be made to avoid areas where rough terrain or air drainage are proven to result in non-representative temperature data.’ 

Obviously, the climate cultists will go after Watts and the others involved, so they can ignore the actual findings, which are nothing new.

(Watts Up With That?) This new report is a follow up to a March 2009 study, titled “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? which highlighted a subset of over 1,000 surveyed stations and found 89 percent of stations had heat-bias issues. In April and May 2022, The Heartland Institute’s team of researchers visited many of the same temperature stations as in 2009, plus many not visited before. The new survey sampled 128 NOAA stations, and found the problem of heat-bias has only gotten worse.

I wonder why NOAA wouldn’t want to fix this?



Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Surprise: 96% Of NOAA Weather Stations Improperly Cited”

  1. Let’s face it: the National Weather Service monitoring stations have usually been in metropolitan areas, usually at the airports, and as the metropolitan areas grow, the heat island effect grows with them.

    Here on the farm, we’re usually a couple of degrees cooler in the summer, and warmer in the winter, than “official” temperatures, probably due to the proximity toward the river.

  2. Hairy says:

    That “study” ess done by The Heartland Institute
    They were also chosen by BIG TOBACCO as the shill to proclaim no evidence smoking causes cancer
    I am unsure the significance of improperly sited”
    The stations have been in the same place and over decades their Temps have increased in line with the RSS data.
    Teach’s former guru on Temps Roy Spenser UALH now says that almost all the warming over the last 35 years has been caused by mankind. Now Spenser has been canceled by Teach

    • Jl says:

      Johnny-please show your evidence that because the study was done by the Heartland Institute the data is somehow corrupted, as you seem to believe.
      And you’re not sure of the significance of the improperly sited stations? Really? Johnny genius-in the end the whole climate ballgame is based on simple temperature taking, right? Billions spent on “climate change” and they can’t move the affected stations a few yards to get them away from artificial heat sources? NOAA has exact details on how each site is supposed to be placed, and 96% of the sites don’t meet their requirement. They don’t have to be in urban areas to be corrupted- they can be near roads or buildings that give off heat. The same type of study was done in 2009, and by the findings the situation has grown worse. You have to ask yourself-why in the world not do it the way your own rules require? If it’s really getting that much warmer, moving the stations to proper sites shouldn’t matter.

  3. Hairy says:

    Teach what percent of planet Earth’s surface is “urbanized?
    0.5 % ???? You say it is THAT causing global Temps to increase.??

    • Dana says:

      You have it backwards, your Hirsuteness: if only a small percentage of the earth’s surface is urbanized, then just that percentage should be the sites of weather collection data. By having so many data collection points in urban areas, the results are skewed higher. GIGO.

  4. James Lewis says:

    There is nothing new here.. From 15 years ago..

    No Hairy, the placement of the measuring devices doesn’t CAUSE the temperature to increase any more than the cock crowing in the AM makes the sun come up.

    BTW – Please provide source of your statement ” Roy Spenser UALH now says that almost all the warming over the last 35 years has been caused by mankind.”

  5. James Lewis says:

    Here Hairy, let me help you to see what Spenser said…

    “As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still…… provisionally ………side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused (and this says nothing about whether the level of human-caused warming is in any way alarming).”

    (provisionally …subject to further confirmation…

    “Global energy balance diagrams you have seen have the numbers massaged based upon the assumption all of the imbalance is due to humans.

    I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter…compared to the ocean warming-based imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter.

    What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural…and we would never know it.

    But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.

    But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.”

    Just like all religions, you must have faith.

  6. Elwood P Dowd says:

    LOL. Heartland photographers took pictures of US temp stations and concluded, once more, that the temp record is “corrupted”. Did they actually examine the temp record? Of course not!

    The US represents just a tiny fraction of the global surface. If you bothered to wade through Teach’s and Breibart’s lazy analyses and checked the site (not cite) maps in the HI article you’d see stations in rural, urban and suburban sites.

    Deniers have long pointed out that the US has warmed slower than the rest of the globe. How does this square with the hypothesis that US sites EXAGGERATE the temp data?

    Finally the idea that the Earth has not warmed is untenable. Ice sheets and glaciers are not influenced by NOAA data! LOL.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Rimjob just keeps making up shit.
      Anyone can read his prior posts.
      That’s all he’s good at, making it up.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

  7. Elwood P Dowd says:

    Note too, the data from the stations are based on changes in temperature.

    Are you deniers back to denying that it’s warming?

    Voters seeing record temps and record rainfalls following extended drought may disagree with you.

    • Jl says:

      J, can you come up with a reason why NOAA has specific criteria for the placement of temperature taking stations so as to generate accurate readings, yet they don’t fix the ones they’ve known, and admitted in 2009 that they were faulty, and are worse now and not fix them? We’ll breathlessly await your response….
      “Are you denying it’s warming”. Can you read? Where in the article did anyone deny that? They’re saying with these corrupted stations that the amount is over-stated. If the cult is really sure of all this warming, there should be absolutely no reason not to fix the stations. I mean, the warming would still be there, correct?

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        ” If the cult is really sure of all this warming, there should be absolutely no reason not to fix the stations. I mean, the warming would still be there, correct?”

        And if those same liars were really sure they won the 2020 election there should be absolutely no reason not to investigate and audit the 10 thousand complaints and examples of cheating. I mean the pedo would still win with “the most votes ever”, wouldn’t it?


    • Jl says:

      “Voters seeing record temps and record rainfalls, droughts…” Gee, that’s never happened before, right? Can you show where those events are any worse than before? And if they were, can you show the causation to be additional CO2? You guys still have a long road ahead of you…

  8. Elwood P Dowd says:


    Dr Spencer wrote like a scientist!

    Scientific theories are always “provisional” (falsifiable!). His “evidence to the contrary” refers to evidence to falsify the theory. So he accepts the evidence supporting the theory of CO2 global warming but is looking for evidence to falsify it.

    We should all follow Dr Spencer’s example.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      You haven’t the slightest idea of how a scientist writes so knock off he bull shit.

      ” but is looking for evidence to falsify it…’

      It doesn’t have to be proven wrong.

      For something to be a scientific theory it must be: “Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is sometimes considered synonymous with testability.”

      It is not falsifiable

      The man made global warming claim is not testable nor is it predictable. IOW, if it can’t be tested it is just faith driven which is religion which defines all the nonsense spewed in good faith.

      The remaining lies are about power and control.

      “And, along with Mann’s resistance to allowing his peers to see all of the information, I started to pick up on some other stuff. Like this:

      “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

      Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

      Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989)

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff or Elwood has had this discussion at least 10 times that I am aware of. He is a nut job. Your arguments are greet and spot on, but Jeff is incapable of understanding.

        • CarolAnn says:

          The inability of pagan believers like Hairy to look at any other real natural causes is enough for me to say they are bullshiters. It is a religion with them. They don’t believe in God so they made Gaia take his place. They aren’t interested in any challenges to their faith just like they wave away any challenges to the stolen election and the scamdemic.

          Closed minds make great followers. Ask any tyrant.

          • david7134 says:

            Harry was a Buddhist acolyte in the 70s, maybe some in the 80s. He used to drive for UPS. Then he was gone for a few years and I would put money of the fact he was in jail. He is an old stoner. He just says the same thing over and over.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Johnnie was locked up in a “nervous” hospital for 2 years after Trump was elected.
            Somehow one might find he hasn’t been cured..

            Bwaha! Lolgf

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      That’s your problem, you’re always trying to “follow” somebody. Follow Buddha you’d be happier.


  9. Hairy says:

    So these improperly sited stations, that show high temps, does that mean that there is less urban heat than we have been recording ?

  10. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    Hairy, an experts opinion is worth nothing if he is being paid to give it. In the case of MMGW and the Wuhan both fields were corrupted the minute the left made money the center of the debate and relinquished all reason the politicians.


Pirate's Cove