2001 Hansen Paper Highlighted The Spectacular Corruption Of The US Temperature Record

Hansen’s 2001 paper exposed how NOAA and NASA massively corrupt the US temperature record. The image below shows the various steps of data tampering..

ScreenHunter_1967 Aug. 16 05.33ScreenHunter_1961 Aug. 16 04.30


Before they start tampering with data, 47% of US rural stations cooled from 1900 to 1999, and 42% warmed. But after NOAA and NASA were done hacking the data, only 22% of stations were cooling and 69% were warming. They effectively contaminated rural stations with urban data.

ScreenHunter_1965 Aug. 16 05.25

Similar story for urban stations. After adjusting for UHI, the US apparently gets hotter. Note that after contaminating the rural data with urban data, both rural and urban stations appear nearly identical at 67-69% warming.

ScreenHunter_1966 Aug. 16 05.25

As awful as this 2001 data tempering was, they have continued to tamper with it since the 2001 paper was written. This graph shows the additional hockey stick of data tampering. Particularly note the spike after 1990, and hiding the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s.

ScreenHunter_1969 Aug. 16 06.03.
2001 version : wayback.archive.org/……/FigD.txt
Current version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

Temperature graphs and press releases from NASA and NOAA grossly misrepresent the measured thermometer record, and in the case of the US actually reverse a long-term cooling trend into a warming trend.


Sensible adjustments would make urban stations look like rural, but NOAA/NASA do the exact opposite and make all stations look like the urban ones.

About Tony Heller

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

45 Responses to 2001 Hansen Paper Highlighted The Spectacular Corruption Of The US Temperature Record

  1. Steve Case says:

    This will all be in your upcoming book right?

  2. How much of this is the supposed correction to a constant time of day for measurement from all U.S. stations?

  3. Ron says:

    I have noticed the corruption in my own area. The “official” data is taken at the Memphis airport, right beside the Fed Ex runway system. Being the busiest airport in the world at night is it no wonder that temps on a clear calm nite are 5 to 10 degrees warmer on average at the airport? I live in the same county in a regular neighborhood and my temp at 6 am is 8 degrees cooler than at the airport. It’s 5 degrees cooler at the NWS office in the middle of the city, and those records are not included in the national network. So corrupt is the data, my growing season is posted as 3 weeks longer than it really is. Why would they even consider mounting the thermometer in the middle of one of the largest masses of concrete in the world? It clearly does not represent the temperatures of the other 99% of the area in the NWS area.

  4. Eliza says:

    Sticky post with Ezra as well lol

  5. Cheshirered says:

    At some future point America will vote in a person worthy of the title of president off the United States. That president will instruct a root and branch investigation of this blatant rigging of perhaps the most influential data of our time. It will be managed by someone worthy of the role, who will be unrelenting.

    Some currently very important people (who seem to think they are untouchable) will be implicated, tried, convicted and jailed. Personal, professional, commercial and government department reputations will be ruined. And rightly so.

    That day cannot come soon enough.

    • tom0mason says:

      If only the world turned in such well oiled wheels.
      IMO a new president, intelligent or otherwise, and his administration, will clean up only those areas causing the most public constination. All others will be lost in the fog of events. Currently this distortion of facts is ‘small potatoes’ compared to the other big issues at this nation’s heart of governance. IMO the guilty parties of this particular fraud on the US public, will sail smoothly into retirement unconcerned about the havoc they have done to science, or the decline in the public’s trust of science that their action have ensured.

      But like you I hope for that day of reckoning will appear, and appear soon.

      • pesce9991 says:

        The word is ‘consternation’ bubble head. The day of reckoning is in nature’s hands and will come in the form of floods along the coast (already happening), extreme weather patterns (already happening), melting glaciers, etc and all despite what the warmists or the deniers say.

        • tom0mason says:

          And yes this an ad hom., as you have nothing to add to the sum of real knowledege on this blog-site.

          Good bye.

        • Gail Combs says:


          What happened to warming temperatures?

          Now it is extreme weather patterns which are a sign of COOLING! not warming as the propaganda artists are aware.

          These maps show “polar Vortex” aka “Loopy Jets” aka as “extreme weather patterns” were typical during the last glaciation.

          Wisconsing Ice Age maps:


        • pesce9991 says:

          The floods are due to the warming of the seas. The seas constitute 70% of the earth’s surface not the roughly 9% your maps show.
          For all your reading, Gail, you don’t seem to think globally which is what this is all about.

        • catweazle666 says:

          You’re not the sharpest knife in the block are you, Fishy?

          Are you a pause denier too, by chance?

        • Latitude says:

          form of floods along the coast (already happening),…65% of tide gauges show no sea level rise at all, or show sea levels falling

          extreme weather patterns (already happening),…every measurement for tornadoes, hurricanes (ACE), droughts, floods, snow storms, etc etc has shown less not more

          melting glaciers,….some are melting, and some are growing (is that local? or global?)

  6. pesce9991 says:

    Tom0, you’re acting like a girly-girl all in a huff! 🙂 I guess you have no answer to give. Here’s a topic for you: How does studying the temperatures in the USA relate to the temperatures of the globe when the USA is only 1.9% of the globe?

    Yes, ‘bubble head’ is an ad hominem but when you have used worse ones on me, I didn’t cross my arms in a huff and say goodbye. I’m still here.

    • Acres of Statuary says:

      You’re missing the point again. You’re not concerned about the corruption of climate science by all of the unwarranted temperature adjustments?

      • Hugh K says:

        I wonder why POS9991 didn’t answer your question? We can only take away from POS9991’s silence regarding climate corruption that POS9991 just doesn’t care about good science. Makes me wonder why people don’t care about the climate scam….they must either be part of the scam or a buckethead.

        • Gail Combs says:

          CAGW has been political from the start. Those who support it support it because it leads to a World Totalitarian Government. For some unknown reason they think a government by the 1% elite is better than a government by the consent of the governed – go figure.

          “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth the Senator who used his bag of political dirth tricks to get CAGW taken seriously in the USA.

          He even confesses as much.

        • Hugh K says:

          Any response to Gail’s comment POS9991? More silence when confronted with facts?
          Do you disagree that CAGW is political and has been from the start?
          Maybe something easier for you to tackle – Gail brings up an important nomenclature often used by alarmists – CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). I will concede that this ridiculously cold summer in most of the US is simply ‘weather’. However, when this summer is viewed in the context of CATASTROPHIC global warming, please explain just what about this cool summer is ‘catastrophic’ or requiring any urgency in dealing with the larger picture of ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’? Did this summer in the US cause you to think anything was catastrophic about the weather? Looking at the bigger picture of the climate…..the past 18 years, global temps have remained flat/lower. Is there anything about that which seems ‘catastrophic’ to you?
          Realizing that ‘consensus’ is important to alarmists, a consensus agrees that world temps have remained flat/lower over the prior 18 years. So how does that relate to a catastrophe? How can you defend the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming when everything has been rolling along fairly normally over the past two decades? Are you willing to concede that the use of the term ‘catastrophic’ when talking about anything to do with global warming over the past two decades is not realistic? The ‘consensus’ thinks that’s the case.

      • pesce9991 says:

        No, not really. What you see as evidence I see as a witch hunt. We should all be concerned instead we have a political party obsessed with losing power that has to obstruct science and demonize scientists. The level of irrational hatred towards Hansen, Mann and Gore for example is what you thrive on. I don’t.

        • Hugh K says:

          More words but not addressing the point; “You’re not concerned about the corruption of climate science by all of the unwarranted temperature adjustments?”
          Care to address the point? No? Didn’t think so. You are too eager to throw out strawman arguments than address the point – Scientific data is being corrupted and you just don’t care? Why?

        • pesce9991 says:

          Hugh, I would be concerned, of course, but I have considered the source and the motivation.

        • pesce9991 says:

          The ‘unwarranted temperature adjustments’ might originate on these pages. I have no way of knowing. I tend to place my trust in a world forum of legitimate scientists. Call me crazy.

        • Hugh K says:

          Just to be clear……So you don’t believe that the data has been corrupted? You disagree that it is statistically impossible that the past is continually cooled while the present is continually warmed? Really?

        • pesce9991 says:

          That’s right, Hugh. Certainly not to the extent portrayed here. Nor are the scientists so corrupt as you want to believe.

        • Acres of Statuary says:

          pesce: “I have considered the source and the motivation.”

          Did you consider the evidence for data tampering
          ? If so, where is it deficient?

        • rah says:

          No need for any proof. Pesce sees the world, the WHOLE world, through partisan political lenses. Science to him is nothing more or less than what his political party says it is. The climate is nothing more nor less than what his politics say it is. He/she which ever it may be, will follow their pied pipers over the cliff without thought or compunction.

          Gore is a snake oils salesman that misled millions for his own ego and financial gain. Mann is one of the nastiest foul mouthed “scientists” out there. All one has to do is see what he has said about Judith Curry. (I won’t spoon feed it to you. If you gave a damn about knowing you would already know.) Mann is so far gone that he thinks that a special provision in the 1st amendment should make his “work” immune from criticism. Hanson used his position to alter records and lead the charge in claiming computer models have a level of accuracy that there was absolutely no evidence that they have. He is a total advocate that gave up any pretense of objectivity long ago. So much so that he has been arrested more than once in protests. I ask you why have none of these three allowed themselves to be debated on a level playing field concerning their assertions by the opposition? Why?

          Gore claims to be an expert. Hanson and Mann are considered “scientists”. All have had key hellfire and brimstone predictions falsified by the observations and facts and none of them have ever really been held accountable for that in any substantive way. And yet you BELIEVE them? These are the people you defend all the while attacking people here that have done nothing like what those three have done? Yes sir, you are a partisan sheep. But at least you have the stones to come here to a forum with some pretty informed members that disagree with you and try to debate which is far more than any of those you are trying defend has done.

        • Acres of Statuary says:

          pesce: [the data has not been corrupted] “Certainly not to the extent portrayed here.”

          There is a lot of snark on this blog, especially in the comments, but there is also a lot of hard data and analysis as well. I can’t speak for everyone but I come here for the hard science and I think that the majority of people commenting here do as well.

          If you are really serious about changing people’s minds why don’t you use arguments that are based on data and analysis? You might be surprised about the thoughtfulness of the responses you receive. If you argue well enough you’ll change some minds.

          As it is, you are coming across as a climate jeremiah and that’s not going to win you any converts. To the contrary, you are just confirming the opinion of people who have concluded that climate alarmism is nothing but a big lie and that is counterproductive result for you.

        • pesce9991 says:

          Acres of Statuary: Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. I am not a climate scientist and it would take a herculean effort on my part and too much of my time to even attempt to counter those who are expert at this by providing data and analysis.. I do enjoy reading the scientific literature even if most of it goes over my head. I am an amateur astronomer not a trained scientist. The point is, there is still a world of commentary possible without being an expert. The majority on this post are not experts. That’s OK. I try to point out areas that don’t require knowledge of charts, temps, etc,etc. but appeal to common sense. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind in the process, but I do wonder why I never get a reply to thought questions.

          For example: These posts are filled with weather reports about the cool summer much of the US is experiencing as though that represents global climate. While Australia (almost the size of the lower 48) has had at least two years of record breaking hot summers. Why not use that as the proxy for global temperatures? I can hear the clamoring that that would not be fair or accurate, but on this post it seems OK as long as the area chosen is unusually cool.

          I appreciate your comments, though, but I think I’ll stick around as long as Steven tolerates me and despite the names, the swearing, and so on.

        • mjc says:

          pesce9991 says:
          August 16, 2014 at 6:54 pm

          That’s right, Hugh. Certainly not to the extent portrayed here. Nor are the scientists so corrupt as you want to believe.


          (BTW, ‘horseshit’ is the new, Whitehouse approved term for statements that one does not agree with…)

          Just download some of the data and look for yourself…the ‘adjustments’ are endless and ongoing, if that doesn’t qualify as ‘tampering’ then nothing does.

          “What is the meaning of ‘is’?”

        • Latitude says:

          For example: These posts are filled with weather reports about the cool summer much of the US is experiencing as though that represents global climate..
          ..and that’s exactly where you’re going wrong

          but have it your way…it’s funnier

        • pesce9991 says:

          No, I don’t think so. Just look at the number of posts that have to do with the weather around “me”. Would we see them if the weather was hot? I doubt it.

          I don’t see anything about places like Sydney where they’ve broken heat records in the last two years.

        • geran says:

          Fish, most of your kind just drinks the kool-aid, but you seem to like to swim in it. Maybe that’s why you call yourself “Fish”.

        • Phil Jones says:

          Pesce… how do you justify eliminating rural stations, using UH I to boost actual readings up, and just general assumptions which as pointed out here… repeatedly over time manipulate temp data upward?

    • Gail Combs says:

      pesce9991 says:

      The floods are due to the warming of the seas. The seas constitute 70% of the earth’s surface not the roughly 9% your maps show.

      For all your reading, Gail, you don’t seem to think globally which is what this is all about.

      Yes I do think globally:
      I just prefer to use shorter comments and not write a book if I can.

      First the seas are not warming they also show the ‘Pause” This is a graph of SST from the EPA.

      Second the earth is leaving a Grand Solar Maximum that drove the Jet Streams poleward (and zonal.) With less UV energy from the sun the Jets are moving equatorward again and becoming ‘Loopy’.

      A 2012 research paper by Francis & Vavrus shows a 14 percent drop in the speed of upper level winds since 1979. (That gives you the loopy)

      Also see:
      Low-Energy Ion [H+ and O+] Escape from the Terrestrial Polar Regions

      And a new paper that points out a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams. The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure


      You are not going to find this clearly stated since it trashes CAGW, but you will find bits and pieces in the literature showing:
      Change in UV solar radiation ===> change in ozone .

      Change in ozone ===> change in stratospheric temperatures .

      Change in stratospheric temperatures ===> change in jet stream .

      Change in stratospheric temperatures ===> change in winds in Antarctica.

      Change in winds in Antarctica ===> change in the Antarctica circumpolar Current (West Wind Drift.)

      Change in the Antarctica circumpolar Current ===>
      change in the Humboldt Current, the cold water current running up the side of South America .

      Change in the Humboldt Current + less UV entering and warming the tropical sea** ===> more La Ninas than El Ninos .
      Some of the papers supporting this are in my old Comment 1 and Comment 2

      ** Trenbreth et al want us to think the sun’s energy is only 341 WM^2 but it is not.

      In the tropics where the oceans heat instead of cool the actual value is 1150 W/m^2 at the equator at mid day,

      Top-of-atmosphere radiation is going to vary over the year from 1410 (high, on January 3) to the 1320 (the “low” value on July 3 each year). This is for a day in mid-September, near that “average” value on the equinox at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extents….

      Major H/T to engineer RACookPE1978

      His table of the real Solar Energy is HERE.

      Also the new paper covered by the Hockeyschtick blog:

    • Phil Jones says:

      Places like Europe.. Australia. .. and others are experiencing the same cooling… pesce… hey, the USA is filled with measurement stations… and has been for 100+ years… good place to find data…

      So… list for us this mass quantity of Temp Stations operating across the 80% of the oceans… where is the data?

      • pesce9991 says:

        Australia happens to be having winter at the moment, hence the low temperatures. Their heat wave was in January.

        “So… list for us this mass quantity of Temp Stations operating across the 80% of the oceans… where is the data?”

        Have you heard about them satellites? They’re up there sending radiation information whereby we infer temps to a very high degree of accuracy. Been doin’ that since 1967.

    • Phil Jones says:

      Plenty here for a book…

      … A best seller…

  7. tom0mason says:

    Isn’t it remarkable that some very uninform people seem to think that these days floods are cause by CAGW, when in fact the most probable cause is that they are very natural.
    However as we don’t know how much water is (or has been) in the atmosphere, how it acts in the air, or even how much is evaporating from all the lakes, swamps, rivers or the oceans at any time – how are we to judge. The only place I can find any estimations is at The USGS Water Science Schools site. So how much water is there in the atmosphere and how much does it vary regionally and over time? The IPCC doesn’t answer the question, it just fudges the result. Give them credit though they did say in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report –

    The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.

    So they are all at sea even with big weather events like tropical storms, no cance with anything smaller then, like a local flood.
    Also remarkable is to say that any weather, or any global climate effects are abnormal, or not, when the normal range has never been reliably quantified.

Leave a Reply

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