Thirteen Years Of NASA Data Tampering – In Six Seconds


1999 version :
2001 version :
2012 version :
2013 version :

The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures – from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered* with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930’s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer.

Earlier versions showed even more of a decline, but I can’t locate digital data for them.

*Mosher says these adjustments are all first rate science.

About Tony Heller

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

121 Responses to Thirteen Years Of NASA Data Tampering – In Six Seconds

  1. Streetcred says:

    Let’s be honest, Mosher would not recognise “first rate science” in the ‘climate narrative’ if it got up and slapped him in the face. Who pays you to shill for them, son ?

  2. DrSandman says:

    Kudos. Very nice work, Steven. To not acknowledge tampering and fraud is to self-declare oneself as a denier.

    Bookmarked for posterity.

  3. Eric Barnes says:

    “*Mosher says these adjustments are all first rate science.”

    Proof positive they are complete crap.

    • Shazaam says:

      Actually makes more sense as “first-rate computer-generated government-funded sciencey stuff”…

      Kinda like that truthiness stuff promoted by the Liar-in-Chef.

  4. gator69 says:

    I wonder what he tells his wife!

  5. NikFromNYC says:

    No. Neither Josh nor Mosh are needed. Too obscure, too complex.

    Established Losers.

    Speak to children.

    Is it fraud? Is it a story? A very good story?

    Six seconds doesn’t tell a story.


    What planet, even?

    What potential?

    Jim Morrison stole your thunder, forever?

    It’s all just a play day?

    Go on TV, Steve.

  6. Don says:

    Hansen and GISS admitted in 1999 that the US was very warm in the 1930’s. Oops, they got caught again.

  7. Eric Simpson says:

    The adjustments are “all first rate science,” huh? But, whether the adjustments are of temperature or sea level or what else not, why are the adjustments ALWAYS to the benefit of the warmers? Always! No, it’s not first rate science, it’s bullshit. First rate bullshit.

  8. Anto says:

    Mosher has found his Harold Camping. Nothing will stop him believing that the end of the world is nigh. It truly is amazing how otherwise intelligent people fall for these confidence tricks.

    • Andy Oz says:

      I’d like to see an annual Harold Camping Award for the most creative End of the World claim. The trophy should be a bronzed dog dropping. Mosher might even be a hall of famer in the awards!

  9. Jody says:

    Hansen discovers time travel
    Selling snake oil in Perth to battle heat

  10. gofer says:

    They obviously got their hands on Stewie’s Time Machine.

  11. Stephen Richards says:

    Andy Oz says:

    December 21, 2013 at 7:34 am
    I’d like to see an annual Harold Camping Award for the most creative End of the World claim. The trophy should be a bronzed dog dropping. Mosher might even be a hall of famer in the awards!

    Why bronze ? The real thing would be better. A lovely stinking pile of ….. would adequately describe their science.

    STEVE. Thanks for your remarkable work.

  12. Stephen Richards says:

    Mosher somehow got hooked up in Howsyerfather’s agenda driven drivel maybe 3 years ago. Before that he was reasonable and reasoning. Such a shame when someone has a damascas moment on the wrong road.

  13. Eliza says:

    He got a big head when he joined the BEST project thats about it me thinks LOL

  14. omanuel says:

    The Space Science & Technology Committee of the United States House of Representatives were asked to help answer two key questions.

    The late Dr . Glenn T. Seaborg and I were trying to find answers to those same questions when he died in 1999:

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    • Sue says:

      Wait, so are you trying to use something that has come from Congress to prove the truth or falsehood on a matter? Yea, good luck with that…..

  15. Nauseating NASA. For 50 years these losers have been trying to torture data so earth looks like Venus. Note to eco fascist losers. Co2 is not a toxin, it is 4/100 of 1 % of atm. gas by weight vs. 95 % on Venus, 95% emitted by Gaia…do you eco-morons see a slight delta in relevancy between the 2 planets ? Thought not.

  16. David Springer says:

    Steven Mosher is the Rodney Dangerfield of temperature adjustments. He just can’t get any respect.

  17. Phil Jones says:

    Their busy rewriting the past any lying about the future plus current times…

    Record Global Ice this year is merely a “Speed Bump”….

  18. methylamine says:

    Steven–off-topic but had to share. Just had a delicious back-and-forth with someone you might know of: David Appell.
    What an appallingly nasty little man he is! Not to mention, an absolutely raving AGW fanatic. He hasn’t even traded in his original AGW catechism for the New Improved Climate Change Book of Prayers, St. AlGore(tm)
    You can find it here:

    He was being hacked to pieces by the other commentators. I’ve seen him before shilling tirelessly for The One True Faith; I think he’s either a masochist, a bot, or such a pathetic inadequate little man that he must attach himself to a Great Cause and associate with those he considers Important People to feel some sense of self-worth.

    That or he’s totally delusional.

    But he DOES have a PhD in physics. So he’s smarter than you. Or me. Or anyone else.
    Which is why he’s basically a jobless androphobe.

  19. High Treason says:

    Conclusion-AGW is a load of feline faeces.

  20. Kramer says:

    Who is Steven Mosher? The dude from WUWT?

    • slimething says:

      He’s a loud mouth narcissistic asshole who started out about 5-6 years ago at Climate Audit. Back then he was a bit more subjective referring to himself as a “lukewarmer”, but over time he descended to being another shill for AGW BS, first IIRC by defending Hansen’s adjustments. Although he contributed to outing the Climategate criminals and more recently Peter Gleick, he has since dedicated himself to defending SAT records and rewriting temperature history with Zeke & co. (Muller),

      Nowadays he makes a few drive-by posts at WUWT (or even here), insults others disagreeing with him and does not return to defend his statements.

      He refuses to explain the upside greenhouse effect, aka the missing hot spot, whereby the surface is warming at a faster rate than the troposphere; diametrically opposed to the basic tenet of AGW.

    • Dave N says:

      I think there used to be a Wikipedia entry, but it looks like it has been removed. There’s some info about him in this link:

      His comments on WUWT seem to indicate he has some kind of disorder, with some of them being quite incoherent and most being cheap shots because they contain no explanation.

  21. cohenite says:

    Got a link to what Mosher said?

    Great post; someone should sue these guys.

  22. daveburton says:

    That’s a compelling graphic, Steve, but there’s one mistake. The “1999” version (which was archived by the late John Daly, who’s death Phil Jones called “cheering”) is really from 2000 (or perhaps very early 2001). You can tell that it’s from after 1999 because it contains average temperature data for calendar year 1999, which wasn’t available until early 2000.

    The warming added by “adjustments” would have been even greater if you’d started with a version of the data from 1999. Unfortunately, that data is nowhere to be found. We have only a graph of it, no data file.

    The most telling statistic for these five versions of NASA’s U.S. surface temperature data is the comparison between the 1934 peak and the 1998 peak. Every revision of the data makes 1934 cooler, relative to 1998. The 2012 and 2013 versions have 1998 warmer than 1934. The 2001 version has them almost tied. The 2000 version (from Daly’s website, which you labeled “1999”) shows shows 1934 as 0.25 °C warmer than 1998. But in Hanson’s 1999 graph, 1934 was 0.6 °C warmer than 1998:

    Unfortunately, NASA GISS seems to have “disappeared” the 1999 version of that data, which was depicted in Hansen’s graph. Two years ago I asked the CSRRT (Climate Science Rapid Response Team) to help me find that lost data, but they were stumped; here’s the conversation:

    I may try to reconstruct the 1999 version of the data from the graph, using one of the tools discussed here:
    Of course the result will only be approximate.

  23. DocMartyn says:


    What an appallingly nasty little man he is! ”

    His is not an ‘appallingly nasty little man’, he is an ‘appallingly nasty fat git’,

  24. I saw the zeke video at WUWT. The premise of the entire exercise of ‘homogenizing’/adjusting temperatures was described by Zeke as ‘Come on, now that needs adjusting’.

  25. Ric Werme says:

    HTML error. The links to the .txt files:

    1999 version :
    2001 version :
    2012 version :
    2013 version :

    Appear to go to only two different files. the actual links behind what displays do go to four different URLs. I haven’t verified the links are good, but the above caught my eye.

    • There are no errors. The 1999 link was archived by John Daly. Two others are from the web archive. NASA overwrites old data.

      The displayed addresses are the original addresses where they were found.

  26. Brian H says:

    as does who? Link lable lacking.

  27. Paai says:

    It is relatively easy to find out whether the adjustments were legitmate: do the new data conform more or less to the data of the other sources, such as the satellites? If yes, it makes sense, and may be justified by the complicated adjustments necessary for ground-based data. If not, they have indeed some explaining to do.

    I am sorry, but it seems that the new lines conform more to the UAH data, so…


    • You have satellite data from 1934? Awesome. Must be worth a lot of money.

      • Paai says:

        I must be mistaken, but I thought your graph ran from 1910 to 2000. That means 20 years of satellite data.

        Now I wonder if you appreciate how complicated the collecting the data from ground stations all over the world is, especially if you go back in time. Also there is no obvious solution for the adjustment of outliers and missing data. Computing the average global temperature for a year is NOT just adding all readings and dividing by the number of stations. New algorithms an models are developed all the time.

        Therefore I rather approve of attempts to re-adjust the results of the ground data so that they fit with the available satellite data, and applying the adjustments also backwards in time for the time before 1980.

        I am sorry if you don’t like the results, but just the fact that there are changes does not prove fraud.


        • Gail Combs says:

          It is the fact the readings are changed, often WITHOUT public documentation that is the problem. SEE Affidavits are for ever

          Also the changes are ALWAYS to cool the past and warm the present. This makes anyone with training in statistics raise an eyebrow.

          One of the reasons given is TIme of Observation (Tobs) however the Six’s Min-Max thermometer was invented in 1782 and has been in use for over two centuries.

          Another reason is the Urban Heat Island Effect but the implementation is to leave airport and city measurements alone and to increase the reading from rural stations.

          Then there was The ‘Station drop out’ problem (there are a series of threads on that problem at that website.)

          Also see: AGW is a thermometer count artifact

          And The Zombie Thermometers:

          In looking for what thermometers died in 2010, I discovered that there are Zombie Thermometers. They appear to be alive in some years, but sometimes are unresponsive and give no data. They can be dropped from the GHCN v2.mean data file (silently) as though they have died. Gone and buried. Not even giving a ‘missing data flag’ to show they are alive.

          And yet….

          When time passes, these, the Un-Dead, can return to the surface of the planet and mingle their data with the living thermometers…

          The CAGW scientists are running into the problem that there are a heck of a lot of “Citizen Scientists” out there with excellent qualifications who are now digging in the Dung Heap and finding all the dead bodies the CAGW scientists wanted to keep buried.

          Their response is to fabricate studies of consensus (97% of scientists believe…) marginalize anyone who disagrees with nasty name calling ‘den!ers’ ‘Flat-earther’…. and if that doesn’t work try to connect the scientists in question to Tobacco or Big Oil (Never mind that Shell Oil funds CRU and Shell VP Ged Davis is an IPCC lead author)

          The final ploy is to get the scientist fired or to sue.

          The shenanigans would be entertaining if the resulting policies were not killing people.
          3,3000 in the UK last winter for example.

        • Paai says:

          Sorry, I must be insane, because I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years. I base this madness on the UAH data as published by John Spencer. And please do not try to cure my insanity with carefully selected data ranges like from 1998 to 2008.

          My statistical knowledge does not raise any eyebrows when the data are revised upwards all the time, in fact that is what I would expect with systematic errors.

          Also I do not know whether I qualify as a “citizen scientist”, but let us assume for this moment that, with a PhD degree in computer science, I do. In that case I must say that a world wide conspiracy to cook GISS data to comply with satellite data and thus proving a non-existent global warming does look a bit silly to me.

          But if you want to go on and believe that, be my guest. Just do not mess up the future of my children.


        • Temperatures are well below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C

        • Paai says:

          Steven, “citizen scientists” would expect a source for your graph. And I am at this stage not interested in what Hansen predicts, only in the question whether the global temperature is or is not going up.

          It makes no sense to discuss possible causes and remedies if we cannot at least reach consensus on that issue.

          Traditionally, the range of data to make sense on climate data is 30 years. Based on that definition, and on the satellite data, temperature is rising. I will certainly not say that 30 years is the perfect number of years, and I am willing to discuss other ranges. But I certainly will raise statistical eyebrows if you propose a range that starts in 1998.


        • gator69 says:

          Yes, as you said, you must be insane. Apology accepted.

        • Paai says:

          @gator69: thank you for your demonstration of the level on which the sceptics discuss.


        • I am presenting overwhelming evidence of fraud and data tampering on this blog, and you are choosing to ignore it. What does that say about you?

        • gator69 says:

          That he is crazy about global warming.

        • gator69 says:

          Where is the UHI adjustment? And where did all these stations go?

          Developing algorithms that use warm biased stations is also not the right way to determine a global average temperature (as if such a thing could be determined). The fact is that the adjusted temps do not match raw satellite observations, and everyone sane agrees there has been zero warming for over 17 years.

          But please feel free to share your early 20th century satellite data, we would love to see it.

  28. Paai says:

    @gator69: the least you can say about me is that I do not accept wild accusations on some bloggers site at face value.

    May I ask you a personal question: do you have much experience with processing noisy data? If so, you can perhaps have an idea of the very real difficulties that you meet. And then perhaps you are not so quick at throwing accusations when you meet results that you do not understand or that do not fit in your view of the world.


    • gator69 says:

      I understand noise just fine, and that is all I get from alarmists. I was a geology/climatology/remote sensing student three decades ago and have followed the science of AGW with intense interest since. I actually read and understand the papers, and ignore rhetoric, you should try that.

      • Paai says:

        Gator, perhaps you should pay more attention to rhetoric, because in that case you might not make so many mistakes against it. Rhetoric is the art of persuading people and insults are very poor tools if you want to accomplish that.

        As I said, computing the average global temperature is not a trivial task. So I would like to ask you again if you have any hard evidence that we have intentionally been misinformed, and how that rhymes with the available satellite data? And no, the proof of tampering by the scientists as Steven Goddard presents it here is not convincing.

        By the way, have you ever heard of Occams razor?


        • gator69 says:

          Occam’s Razor is what dooms AGW, and yes I am quite familiar with it as I use it to debunk alarmists on a regular basis.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here.

          I am not insulting you when I call you insane, it is merely an honest observation.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I provided links to two websites that go into a detailed look at what was done and you completely ignore them.

      So here is another where a ‘Citizen Scientist’ is actually collecting the original data from the handwritten logs. You know the data Phil ‘The Dog ate my homework’ Jones lost.

      Meanwhile a group over at WUWT is doing the type of rigorous science that is SUPPOSED to be done by our paid public servants but wasn’t. The data is not available yet because the last time some of the data was made public it was stolen and published by Mueller & Co. as BEST.

      Meanwhile if you prefer a peer-reviewed paper:
      Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality



      Daily minimum temperature (Tmin) and maximum temperature (Tmax) data of Huairou station in Beijing from 1960 to 2008 are examined and adjusted for inhomogeneities by applying the data of two nearby reference stations. Urban effects on the linear trends of the original and adjusted temperature series are estimated and compared. Results show that relocations of station cause obvious discontinuities in the data series, and one of the discontinuities for Tmin are highly significant when the station was moved from downtown to suburb in 1996. The daily Tmin and Tmax data are adjusted for the inhomogeneities. The mean annual Tmin and Tmax at Huairou station drop by 1.377°C and 0.271°C respectively after homogenization. The adjustments for Tmin are larger than those for Tmax, especially in winter, and the seasonal differences of the adjustments are generally more obvious for Tmin than for Tmax. Urban effects on annual mean Tmin and Tmax trends are ?0.004°C/10 year and ?0.035°C/10 year respectively for the original data, but they increase to 0.388°C/10 year and 0.096°C/10 year respectively for the adjusted data. The increase is more significant for the annual mean Tmin series. Urban contributions to the overall trends of annual mean Tmin and Tmax reach 100% and 28.8% respectively for the adjusted data. Our analysis shows that data homogenization for the stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature, and this necessitates a careful evaluation and adjustment for urban biases before the data are applied in analyses of local and regional climate change.

  29. Paai says:

    “I am not insulting you when I call you insane, it is merely an honest observation.”

    In that case, dear Gator, our discussion is pointless. Thank you again for the demonstration of typical sceptic discussion methods. Bye.


    • gator69 says:

      Thanks for bringing by the pablum. 😉

      • Paai says:

        Dear Steven: I am so glad that you seem to try to establish a real discussion.

        You ask why “You alarmists” ignore all actual data. So far I only mentioned the UAH data. Why do you consider those not to be actual data?


  30. Kepler says:

    Ignorance is bliss, and that makes our friend Paai the happiest person on the face of the earth.

    • Paai says:

      Dear Kepler, why is it that you sceptics generally behave as high school kids? I mean: every serious attempt to discuss climate, is immediatly countered with insults. But by all means, continue. The more inane and infantile you all behave, the more normal people will turn away.

      I apologize to all the intelligent and well-educated high school students that I have met.


      • Dear Paai, why is that you alarmists generally ignore all actual data?

        • Paai says:

          Dear Steven: I am so glad that you seem to try to establish a real discussion.

          You ask why “You alarmists” ignore all actual data. So far I only mentioned the UAH data. Why do you consider those not to be actual data?


        • I showed you that all of the temperature records from RSS up to GISS are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C. You chose to ignore that fact, because you aren’t actually interested in the science.

  31. Paai says:

    Half of the time my replies seem to end up with the wrong people. What am I doing wrong?

  32. Paai says:

    Dear Steven, as I explained above, the first thing we must be certain of is whether the earth is warming up or not. If it is not warming up, we do not have to worry about Hansen, except perhaps to ask him to explain why GISS said it was warming, where UAH said it was cooling. And even then, a scientist would look again at both datasets.

    But if in fact we have data we can trust – in the sense that it was not wilfully mispresented or tampered with, and I think we may trust Christy and Spencer – and if that data indicates that warming is real, then we have to worry whether is is man-made or not.

    It works both ways: if there is no warming, Hansen and his collegues are totally wrong readjusting the temperature upwards and can be shot as far as I am concerned. But if, in fact, there is warming, they cannot be blamed if they try to fit their calculations to the reality they perceive.

    So back to square one: the data. Is, according to UAH and a sensible definition for the sample range, warming occurring or not?


    • Latitude says:

      you ever wonder what all this hysterical bs would look like…
      …if it were plotted as a regular thermometer

      • Paai says:

        Latitude, thank you for your extremely enlightening and adult contributions. I can see that we, alarmists, must be, eh… alarmed… by your intellectual acumen.


      • Paai says:

        Dear Latitude, is the symbol next to your name by accident or on purpose? It looks a bit like a swastika to me. Some people see links between sceptics and far right groups, but I very much hope that this is not the case here.


        • You are not interested in discussing science. You are just another troll here to make noise, and will soon be spam.

        • paai says:

          I am sorry, I can now see that the symbol is an artefact and I apologize for my last remark

        • Latitude says:

          being a troll is bad enough…..but rabid ignorance just puts the cherry on top ROTFL

        • gator69 says:

          Nazis were the National ‘Socialist’ Party, and that is the far left, not right. The Nazis were about big government and the rights of man. Left.

          So far we can rule out the Earth and Political Sciences as possible fields of study our new troll may have experienced.

        • paai says:

          Dear all. I know it may come as a shock for you, but there really exist people who admit their mistakes.

          The dutch, having been occupied by the nazis are perhaps oversensitive to patterns that look as if they have been inspired on swastikas.

          I apologize again for my mistake and I hope we may return to climate and global temperature.

    • Some of the data sets show a small amount of cooling since 1997. Others show a small amount of warming since 1997.

      The much more interesting fact is that all of the temperature records show temperatures far below climate model forecasts.

      Your obsession with a meaningless and indeterminate benchmark shows me that you aren’t interested in science.

  33. Paai says:

    Dear Steven, you were doing so well – until the last sentence. That really was uncalled for. Can we please dispend with the sniping and exchange our views as grown-ups?

    I was not talking about benchmarks, only about the importance of whether earth was cooling or warming up vis-a-vis the accusations you levelled at Hansen cs.

    Also, in a real scientific discussion you do not talk about “small amounts” without explaining wat reference cadre you were using for “small”.

    Finally, about your remark that “all of the temperature records show temperatures far below climate model forecasts”. As a dutchman I really cannot confirm that for this winter (it may well become the warmest winter of the record), but of course, Holland is not the world and it is extremely unscientific to pick out a particular region or particular year as proof for climate change.

    Can you give me a pointer to a reliable site or article where all recent climate models are collected, so that I can either confirm or reject your proposition?

    By the way, how did you like the article “Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Using Ensembles of Regional and Global Climate Models and Multiple Observation-Based Data Sets from last December”, in the SIAM Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, by Matthew Heaton, Tamara Greasby, and Stephan Sain? Warning: some statistic knowledge is expected and not for the faint of heart.


  34. paai says:

    Dear Steven, I hope that you will not consider this simple question as Spam and ban me for all eternity from this open and honest discussion site, but why do you take 1997 as starting point for your trend? Do you have a sound, scientific reason, or did you pull that year from a hat?


    • mid-1996 is the longest period of time going backwards from the present when the satellite record shows no warming.

      However, if the post Mt. Pinatubo cooling years are removed, there is actually no warming since 1991.

  35. paai says:

    Dear Steven, I do not quite understand your technique of going back in time to find a range that shows no warming, at least not as an argument that warming has stopped. Looking at the UAH graph there seems to be considerable warming between 1997 and 2014 and even more from 1991 to now.

    Do you have access to a different and obviously better data set than the UAH? Do you use different smoothing algoritms? A better algoritm for trending? If so, should not you share it with me, so we can talk as equals?

  36. Gail Combs says:


    The real climate debate that has been raging is ignored by the ‘Climate Scientists’ and MSM

    We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates… The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.

    The thing is, informed geologists hope and pray Greenhouse Gases can delay the next glacial inception.

    Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, was right on time for glacial inception. It occurred when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse, a few centuries older than half a precession cycle. Note that the end of MIS 11, the best analog to the Holocene, had two thermal pulses before the big drop into glaciation. We are not out of the woods yet either because the Earth will remain at or close to the solar insolation that triggers glacial-inception for the next 4,000 years.

    If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct it would be GHG emissions that have prevented glacial inception so far.

    “Because the intensities of the 397kaBP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.”

    Now tell me again why we want to lower CO2? Why the IPCC and the US government wants to strip the devil gas from the late Holocene atmosphere? Is it so we can take our glacial inception chances? Really? That is the IPCC and the EPA’s recommendation? According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis we should already be in the next glacial were it not for AGW! So Obama is recommending removing the only (so far) hypothesized glacial inception deterrent!

    Not only is that the recommendation but it is backed by questionable temperature data and incorrect Climate models.

    Meanwhile the World Bank, Universities and the ultra-rich are doing a massive land grab in Africa and Latin America.

    Gee, think they might know something they didn’t bother to tell us peasants?

  37. Morgan says:

    Gail, you know that CO2 can’t possibly delay the onset of glaciation because the atmosphere is already opaque to IR at the 13-18 micron band.

    Look at the difference between 375 and 750 ppm. Nothing. Even 750 ppm won’t do a thing if an ice age starts.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am a chemist (Geology is a hobby) so I am aware that all CO2 can do is delay the transfer of heat to outer space by a small amount of time. Besides the big influence on the earth’s climate is water in all its manifestations.

      What is interesting is the super El Nino in 1997-1998 and the Earthshine Project – Albedo Graph

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh and the peer-reviewed paper from the September 2012.

      Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
      gives the following information:

      Current values are insolation = 479 W m?2 and CO2 = 400 ppmv.

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m?2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m?2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m?2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m?2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m?2, CO2 = 240 ppmv

      Only problem is the CO2 measurements are just as ‘Adjusted” as the temperature measurements.

      However there is this paperCarbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.

      So with the current subdued Solar ‘Forcing’ 9% lower than at the Holocene Optimum and carbon starvation in trees during the Wisconsin Ice Age, why ever would anyone in their right minds want to stop putting CO2 back into our atmosphere much less “sequester” CO2?

      Are they suicidal?

      • Latitude says:

        Only problem is the CO2 measurements are just as ‘Adjusted” as the temperature measurements.
        Gail, that’s something that really irks me…..and no one even talks about it

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is a lot tougher for the average person to understand and it has been well buried.

          ….”This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”

          Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

          The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

  38. paai says:

    Dear Steven, why do you offer me a graph with a trendline that is so obviously dependent on the 1998 peak? It would be far more convincing if you could make your case without needing that outlier. Can you understand those that would consider this cherry-picking, and what would be your defence in scientific terms?

    • Kepler says:

      You said “I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years.”

      Steven just provided you with evidence showing that there has been no warming for 17 years. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

      • Paai says:

        Dear Kepler, as I have already said, I downloadedd the UAH data and computed the trends myself. I will gladly admit that the warming trend has diminished, but again: the slope did not dip under zero before the yearly variance messed things up from 2005 onwards.

        Why don’t you present your own trend algorithm and the graph that goes with it, in stead of relying on others? This goes for all of you.

    • Andy Oz says:

      Paai is the new David Appell avatar. He can’t help stalking Steven G.

    • I see, you want to throw out the 1998 El Nino, but keep the 1990’s Mt. Pinatubo cooling and the 2010 El Nino. Brilliant.

  39. Morgan says:

    Paii, if somebody points out that global warming has not increased in 17 years, which 17 years do you suggest he use? I would suggest using the most recent 17 years.

    • Paai says:

      Dear Morgan, this morning I reinstalled gnuplot and downloaded the UAH dataset to find out once and for all how the trends compared. Also I was interested how big the influence of the outlier 1998 was. So I plotted the slopes of the linear regressions from 1979 to 2013 “as is” and once with 1998 averaged between 1997 and 1999.

      I really cannot help it, but the slopes remained positive till 2005, when the graph started swinging wildly because of the fact that the yearly variance became too large.

      This means that the trend has remained positive and warming has increased.

      If you want to, I will gladly present the graphs and the programs for your inspection.

      By the way: although the influence of the 1998 outlier was clearly visible from 1990-1997, it nowhere dipped into a negative slope, as in the graph Steve presented.


      • gator69 says:

        Alert the IPCC! Because even they acknowledge ‘the pause’.

        “Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
        – Dr Pachauri, Chairman IPCC

        The lack of warming since 1998 is well documented, and papers are being hastily written trying to explain it away, you are insane.

  40. Gail Combs says:

    Paai says:

    “Sorry, I must be insane, because I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years…..”

    You are behind the times. The Climate Scientist have finally had to face up to reality.

    “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.” (wwwDOT)

    The UK Met Office:
    “July 2013 – Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013….”

    1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones

    2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link

    3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, [Maybe THAT is the 95% the IPCC is now talking about.] suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;

    So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.

    Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?

    • Dave N says:

      Beats me why people are wasting time explaining something to someone who has already adequately demonstrated they have severe problems understanding anything.

    • Paai says:

      Dear Gail, I have already said that I am not interested in Hansen and his models, only in the question whether the earth is still warming up,

      I have computed the trends for the UAH data again, and nowhere the trend becomes negative, except after 2005, when the variance becomes to large to make sense.

      And as I said, everybody is invited to share his or her algorithms and data with mine. If you do not want to do that… well…


  41. Gail Combs says:

    Steve, please drag my comment out of the ether where WordPress booted it for having too many links.

  42. Paai says:

    Gentlemen (and ladies), I have tried to have a grown-up discussion with you, and got insults and threats. I offered to share my data and algorithms, and did not even get an answer.

    You totally confirmed my idea of climate sceptics. I will leave this site now and leave you to your bigotry.


    • Actually, you have shown no interest in discussion or science, and have ignored all of the evidence presented to you.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Yes, you are correct Steve.

        Even Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of IDCC) and the UK Met Office have grudgingly admitted no warming for 15 to 17 years after it was shoved in their face enough times.

        I always find the global temperature given to 0.01 °C completely laughable to begin with.

        The number (Global Temperature) is based on a sample size of ONE. There is no duplication of readings. Each reading represent one reading by one instrument in one spot at one moment in time. Therefore increasing the precision via averaging does not apply. (Increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy.) This is another of the BIG LIES.

        A lot of the data, especially the older data is rounded or truncated to the nearest digit.
        “A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the the BOM “High Quality” (HQ) dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records…. Around 30% of all readings in the Fahrenheit era (before 1972) were whole numbers, and about 18% afterwards.”link

        Since the results are only as good as the worse number in the data set, the precision is good only to the nearest whole number and the whole trend is ZERO.

        That isn’t even getting into accuracy and mangling the data.

    • Kepler says:

      Dear Paai, Thank you for providing us with an excellent example of how alarmist group think can turn so many people into idiots abroad living in climate science fantasy land.


  43. omanuel says:


    The first and most obvious act of deception occurred between 1945 and 1946. Mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists all agreed:

    In 1945 the interior of the Sun was mostly iron (Fe)

    In 1946 the interior of the Sun was mostly hydrogen (H)

    This unanimous change of opinions occurred without discussion or debate

  44. Andrew says:

    Didn’t Niagara Falls freeze solid in 1932?

Leave a Reply

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