Top Tweets for #NOAAghoststation

On the label: he’s a member of the CO2 Coalition, and the article says so. He told me no organization funds his ghost-station work, that his book earns him nothing, and that he doesn’t charge for his talks. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it. But his affiliation doesn’t change NOAA’s files, which is why I checked his chart against them instead of relying on anyone’s word. His chart plots plain averages of the two files, and those numbers are what the files show. Before 1950, the gap between his lines comes almost entirely from NOAA’s adjustments, which lower the old readings by 1.26°F on average. A plain average of absolute temperatures also reflects which stations are in it, though. Since 2015, most of the gap comes from NOAA’s estimates for closed stations, which sit in warmer places, rather than from adjusting the stations still reporting. Done as anomalies, which account for that, the raw trend in daytime highs from every start year through 1946 to 2025 is positive. The adjustments still matter. Counting only stations and years with both a raw and an adjusted value, they supply 64 percent of the 1895 to 2025 trend in daytime highs, and the time-of-observation correction is about a third of what they add. The reference network only produces national averages from 2005, so it can’t check the earlier decades, where most of the gap lies.