NASA : Doubling Warming By Data Tampering

Between 2001 and 2015, NASA doubled 1880-2000 warming, via good old-fashioned data tampering.

2001 version :   2015 version: Fig.A.gif 

The next graph normalizes the two NASA graphs to the most recent common decade. It shows the magnitude of the tampering.

Alternatively, we can normalize the graphs to the earliest decade, the 1880’s. This shows very clearly how total warming from 1880 to 2000 has doubled since 2001.

NASA, NOAA, Zeke, Mosher and Nick can generate any shape graph they want – because they don’t actually have any verifiable historical data for most of the Earth,.

Bottom line is that NASA/NOAA/CRU/Berkeley Earth global temperature graphs are meaningless garbage, put out by fake scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to NASA : Doubling Warming By Data Tampering

  1. Yaakov Haimovich says:

    The World was created in 1979….. :)

  2. AZ1971 says:

    Of course it’s meaningless garbage, because nothing stays consistent other than ever-increasing levels of global warming in fancy-pants PR campaigns.

    If all temperature data proxies that are sewn together to produce a “global temperature record” were instead pieces of fabric in a quilt, it would look something like this:

  3. Mark Fife says:

    I can speak to the truth of what you say for the Berkeley Earth Data. It is mostly useless junk. Even the few station IDs showing extensive data ranging from 1900 to current are biased by changes in location and changes to measuring devices. You can even see the breaks in the data. Other stations appear to go through serious losses of calibration or suffer huge errors. The annual averages for a station go wild, jump through huge extremes, after which the data either stops or settles down to a higher than previous average. All with no indication of what happened.

    Going through their data I identified exactly 3 stations with continuous records from 1900 to 2010 with no location changes and no obvious bad data. These stations are in Russia, Switzerland, and the US. They all show exactly the same thing which is a warming trend from about 1900 to the 1930’s and 40’s, a cooling trend into the 70’s, and another warming trend into the 90’s. The two warming trends are about the same magnitude and about the same length. The higher temperatures occurred within ± 5 years of 1940.

    There are more stations with good data from the late 1800’s through the 1940’s. They show what may be a slight cooling trend starting around 1890 or so and then that same warming trend into the 30’s and 40’s. All of these are in the US. Most of the older stations disappear by the 1980’s.

    The Berkeley Earth data set gets really bad after the 1980’s. A huge percentage of the post 80’s record consists of station data for 1 year or less. Several are exactly one month’s average.

    But if you take all their data, no matter how fragmentary, and average it all together with no adjustments or corrections you get exactly the graph they show as their final, adjusted, smoothed, blah blah blah data.

    There is more, but if you would like to see my data and analysis at my blog.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      Too much Berkely Earth pandering in the skeptic world that needs to be squashed. Have you thought about submitting a guest post to WUWT? Would probably make Anthony W. upset but it’s worth a shot and I think would have a significant effect.

    • richard verney says:

      I read you comments with interest, and your blog page. I did not independently verify what you said, but note that you say that it is variable.

      i recently posted a comment on WUWT based upon your work. I hope that you do not mind.

      Anthony does not like BEST, since he considers that they betrayed an early release agreement with respect to his surfacestation research.

      I too consider that your research would make a great Article on WUWT, and Anthony allows guest bloggers, so in principle it is worth approaching Anthony with an outline post. It deserves as wide an audience as possible, and WUWT would provide a good platform.

      Obviously, you need to double down on your fact checks. One would not wish to see the thrust of the comment side tracked by petty arguments on this or that fact, which probably would have little impact upon the overall theme of your message, but remember that Mosher has the entire might of BEST behind him, so you need to be on firm ground.

      Finally, have you seen RUTI (rural unadjusted temperature index). it is well worth a read.

      • Mark Fife says:

        I thought I had replied earlier. Oh well! Thank you guys for the positive comments. I really do appreciate that.

        No, I do not mind you or anyone referencing or using anything. I am really only interested in facts, and facts which affect all of us should be freely given. I welcome anyone to take and use anything. I welcome constructive criticism too. Show me how I am wrong and I will endeavor to learn from it.

        I had not seen RUTI before. They really do a good job of explaining the very real errors which are being made. Much better than I did. I will definitely spend some time over there.

        And you are right Richard. My blog is really more for me as a form of personal expression. I write about anything that strikes me. My target audience mainly is composed of friends and family and friends of friends and family. I do hope others will wonder in and find something to enjoy. These are typically well educated people, but math and statistics tend to make non science or engineering people’s eyes glaze over. Yet, it is almost impossible to present this subject without math.

        Presenting a guest post to WUWT would be a much different audience. I would like to do that.

        Again, thank you for the positive comments!

  4. Mark Fife says:

    Another blog post I made shows the Berkeley Earth data in another equally damning light. I was using Excel and time as my primary tools. I decided to migrate to a SQL database which makes importing and organizing the data much quicker and easier. I essentially wrote my own program to pull data and create data tables which I export into Excel to create the graphs.

  5. Andy DC says:

    Even if the rest of the world has no data, the US is not the world, thus it is up to agenda/grant driven climate scientists with their warm biased models and “expert” extrapolations and adjustments to fill in the blanks. It is the scientific method at its very finest!

  6. sunsettommy says:

    I see that Steve Mosher wants to be awesome,by making sucker punches over what Tony writes elsewhere,hoping Tony doesn’t see it. This is from WUWT”

    ” Steven Mosher
    October 12, 2017 at 9:18 am Edit

    “SM Certainly the raw temperatures from back then had to be too cold. With adjustments, that would make the 1940s even warmer, as Tony Heller has shown. BTW, TH has implied that BEST is a crock. Why don’t you with your programming skills go and take his code and show him his mistakes? Your absence on his blog is being missed.”

    1. TH uses the smallest dataset he can find to support his views.
    2. BEST was formed to use ALL THE DATA, specifically Anthony and others ( em smith, Joe D Aleo )
    complained about USHCN because of the drop off in data. So we dediced to use ALL THE DATA
    Skeptics idea, Not our idea.
    3. In the raw data the total record is WARMER adjustments cool the record they dont warm it.
    4. I spent way too much time with his old code, could not find a single line supporting any of the graphs
    he produces. Plus, he is using a TINY subset of data to cherry pick his results. There are 19000
    Stations in the US he ignores and 42000 stations in the rest of the world he ignores”

    My isn’t he awesome?

    I replied his moshleading, lying comment, snicker…. it was sooo easy!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Mosh is a CHARLETON, and a LYING piece of human distrust.

      Selling his meagre abilities as a frontman to anyone willing to pay.

      I wouldn’t even buy a used car off him.

      I wouldn’t even buy fish bait of him.

    • MrZ says:

      3. Cools the history, yes but there is definitely no cooling applied to recent records. If it was BEST would deviate from hcn and show less warming.
      4. Wow, can he please send a link to the 19000 stations used in the thirties, would be great to compare with hcn.

    • sunsettommy says:

      It appears that Awesome Mosssshhher saw my comment and ran off. He posted about 5 times in other threads.

      Wonder if he will dare himself tomorrow?

    • richard verney says:

      See my comment below.

      I too have responded to Mr Mosher.

      probably about 5 years ago, Mosher claimed that 50 stations would suffice to show a trend. He had in mind 50 spatially sited stations throughout the globe.

      Tony is dealing with just the US, and the 747 stations with extant data more than complies with Mosher’s assertion that relatively few stations suffice to tell you all that you need to know.

      The claims of recent warming is all in the adjustments made to the underlying RAW data. Of course, it is conceivable that the adjustments could be good and valid, but the warmists should be held to justify each and every adjustment made to the original RAW data.

      I consider the fact that both Nick and Mosher have been unable to deal adequately, still less convincingly with Tony’s recent plots demonstrates that this is an area of weakness. This is a point to be banged home, and to bring to the attention of as many people as possible.

      Keep up the good work Tony, and sunsettommy keep hitting the point home. This will gain more traction on WUWT.

  7. Tony P. says:

    It’s time for NOAA & NASA to come clean with the American public about their data tampering. A major announcement by newly installed heads of each agency describing in detail the magnitude & problems caused by data tampering. While some of this may be relatively common knowledge amongst the meteorological community, the general public has no idea that the climate record has been tampered with—and more than once. Without this, it’s basically business as usual.

  8. RW says:

    Tony, is it possible to audit this and if so, have you done it yet or are you considering doing it?


  9. richard verney says:

    I have also posted something recently on WUWT in response to a comment made by Mr Mosher:

    What B€ST has done could form the subject of an entire Article, but the material point in all of this is that if one wishes to know whether temperature has changed over time, one needs to make a like for like pin point comparison, ie., compare actual station data with its own actual data, and not seek to produce some artificial construction of global trends or hemispherical trends.

    As soon as there is a change in the sample set (and the composition of this sample set probably changes yearly), no meaningful comparison can be made. As i have posted numerous times, the station data that was used to form the 1880 temperature anomaly is not precisely the same stations used to form the 1900 anomaly, which in turn is not precisely the same stations used to form the 1920 anomaly, which in turn is not precisely the same stations used to form the 1940 anomaly, and so forth such that in turn it is not precisely the same stations used to form the 2016 anomaly.

    We simply do not know whether it is warmer today than it was in say 1940, or even for that matter in 1880, because we are not comparing actual temperature measurements from the same very stations with one another.

    According to:

    In 1951 there were 576 stations which came on line. Of those stations 211 maintained continuous, reasonably consistent measurements for 50 years. The graph below is the result of those 50 years of measurements from those stations.

    This is a drastically different result from that of the complete data set. Instead of a pronounced warming trend as in the complete data set, we see a slight cooling trend of less than .25° C. Essentially this is no change as the year to year variability is many times greater than the total projected change.

    The conclusion from this study is no evidence of any warming. None.

    You can replicate my data for this time period or for any time period within the data set. As long as you follow the guidelines for a proper time based study of temperature trends, namely you can only use data from stations reporting for the entire time period being studied, you will get similar results. No warming, slight warming, or slight cooling. What you will not find is any warming trend even remotely resembling the chart put forth by Berkeley Earth. That is fact (my emphasis)


    This gentleman went through B€ST data and noted:

    Going through their data I identified exactly 3 stations with continuous records from 1900 to 2010 with no location changes and no obvious bad data. These stations are in Russia, Switzerland, and the US. They all show exactly the same thing which is a warming trend from about 1900 to the 1930’s and 40’s, a cooling trend into the 70’s, and another warming trend into the 90’s. The two warming trends are about the same magnitude and about the same length. The higher temperatures occurred within ± 5 years of 1940.

    No doubt, SM can check this out for us, and revert in detail listing all stations that have extant records from 1951 to date, and show us what these stations show on unadjusted RAW data.

    Finally do not be swayed by SM’s comment that TH only uses a few stations. SM once said that 50 stations would be sufficient to establish any trend, and TH uses either the entire number of stations making up the USHCN record, alternatively (recently) just the 747 stations that have continuous records these past 100 years. that is plenty of station data.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.