NASA Exaggerating Global Warming By 2X

NASA currently shows a total of 1.5C warming in their land only temperature record.

graph (3)

graph.png (1130×600)

But the 1999 version of their data showed about 0.7C warming from 1866 to 1998.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 3.50.21 PM

Archived from:

NASA clearly does not agree with NASA, so which version is correct? A good way to check is by comparing the NASA data with satellites. Through the year 1999, NASA surface temperatures agreed with satellite temperatures – but have diverged sharply since then. NASA shows continued warming since the year 2000, but satellites show none.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 2.08.40 PM

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This makes the post-2000 NASA data look very suspect. If we splice the satellite data on to the last reliable NASA surface temperatures from 1999, we see a total of 0.75C warming over the past 150 years – half of what NASA is currently showing for their entire data set.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 5.06.03 PM

Gavin claims that July 2016 “was absolutely the hottest month since the instrumental records began.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 4.19.59 PM

The instrumental satellite record showed that Gavin was absolutely not telling the truth. July was nowhere near as warm as 1998 or 2010.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 4.21.51 PM

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Gavin’s claims of record heat are simply not defensible. He is claiming records by tiny margins – which are much larger than the discrepancies with more accurate techniques.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to NASA Exaggerating Global Warming By 2X

  1. Rud Istvan says:

    This post is somehow very off. Third figure is just wrong. There is no satellite record prior to 1979. Period. Whatever you plotted in red for RSS pre 1979, it isn’t a satellite record. Those started exactly in December 1978.
    TH, you do some great historical comparison stuff. Why commit such an obvious post blunder? Self inflicted wound. Own Goal. And so on. Best not continued. I’m

    • tonyheller says:

      What on earth are you talking about? I suggest you put a pair of glasses on. I spent a couple of hours putting this together – you could spend a couple of minutes looking before going off on a ridiculous rant like that.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Rud, Looks like it starts around 1980 to me.

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is no way that WFT could draw a graph with RSS starting before 1979.

    • Jamie says:

      Talk about an “own goal”. ?

      Rud, unless you’re simply adding smear and noise, check the data and dates a little more before commenting. Otherwise all you achieve for you and your ideology is another embarrassing and unscientific advance.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    RSS July
    1998 0.605
    2010 0.558
    2016 0.469

    UAH July
    1998 0.51
    2016 0.39
    2010 0.33

    2016 is below 1998 in both REAL data sets.

  3. TA says:

    “This makes the post-2000 NASA data look very suspect. ”

    I would call that an understatement, Tony. :)

    The temperature data was manipulated after 2000 because NASA was trying to foster the notion that each successive year was hotter than the last. That way, every year they could claim this is the “hottest year evah!” It has served them well in the public relations arena. But as your comparison with the Satellite records shows, the manipulations by NASA are a false reality. A lie, if you will.

Leave a Reply

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