NASA Now Tampering With Raw Data Too

The NASA GISS V2 temperature graph for Nuuk, Greenland showed a significant cooling trend since the 1930s.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The V4 unadjusted data now shows no cooling trend.

GHCN-Unadjusted is the raw data as reported by the weather station.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

This next graph overlays the V4 data on the V2 data (blue.)  You can see how they cooled the past and warmed the present in the V4 “unadjusted” data, in order to make the cooling go away.


The next graph shows how NASA has altered the raw data.  For some reason, the data file for V4 only goes from 1961 to 2010.  I have no idea why that is, but you can see the spectacular data tampering NASA is doing.

This is the first time I have seen NASA or NOAA tampering with raw data.  They seem to be entering a whole new realm of scientific fraud.  This is new with V4. The V3 version below was still accurate.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

They also don’t know where the station is any more, and have deep sixed it into the ocean. Along with their integrity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to NASA Now Tampering With Raw Data Too

  1. Psalmon says:

    Why can’t this data manipulation be turned over to some Inspector General or a Whistleblower contact so it can be investigated? At this point it is Trump’s NOAA, it is Trump’s NASA. It seems based on the repeated and massive hoaxes the media and government agencies have perpetrated, that it the time is right for the public to listen to an internal report on that confirms this type of constant and rampant manipulation. It is definitely needed politically as well. Democrats and the Media are going to go all in on Climate Change for 2020. It is time to put an end to this garbage.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Exactly. It’s time for the President to clean house at NASA / NOAA.

      • Psalmon says:

        NASA reports directly to the President. NOAA reports to Dept of Commerce. The grants however come out of NCAR and NSF. The thing needs to be reorganized so you get new management, new tasking, and separation. For instance you need to separate data archiving IMO from analysis however. Nobody should be able to alter the records.

        • Pete says:

          if you can prove to me that NCAR provides NOAA with the grants, i’ll be much grateful. i’ve been mowing down alarmists lately and being the thick headed creatures they are they think they can handwave away the removal of the 1940s ‘blip’ by NASA/NOAA because the climategate email that discusses that was between NCAR and the IPCC. it’ll be one more bullet i’ll have in my arsenal against them if you can provide me with a source for the grant funding from NCAR, so thanks in advance.

    • Al Shelton says:

      This is what Dr. Will Happer is supposed to do……..
      I hope that Tony is on his committee, or can present his data.

  2. David Birch says:

    Why is anybody surprised by this latest adjustment from NOAA/NASA? is it now just accepted that this corruption is going unpunished? Until this is subjected to “outside ” scrutiny unfortunately it will just be part of life!

  3. Anon says:

    It is really jaw dropping when you lay out all the “adjustments” chronologically:

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #1 (Land Temperatures – 2015)

    Global warming ‘pause’ caused by glitch in data

    Tony’s Prediction from 2015:

    Look for the satellite data to be adjusted to bring it into compliance with the fully fraudulent surface temperatures. The Guardian is now working to discredit UAH, so it seems likely that RSS will soon be making big changes – to match the needs of the climate mafia. Bookmark this post.

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #2 (Troposphere RSS Temperatures – 2017)

    Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

    Right on schedule! As predicted by Tony Heller in 2015.

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #3 (Ocean Temperatures – 2019)

    Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought

    Data, not models, at fault… “In the past when [the models and records] didn’t agree so well, part of that was a problem with the observations, not the models,” he said.

    So, the Ocean is warming faster than they thought, YET: “The waters around the mouth of the glacier – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq in Greenlandic – are now the coolest they have been since the 1980s. ” And the Greenland glaciers are growing again!


    • Charlie Barker says:

      That research paper showing the oceans temperatures rising at an accelerated rate has been retracted, but media still states the faulty findings. Apparently the math was flawed and a skeptical scientist found the mistake and notified Nature Magazine who immediately retracted it. However it was buried in a news cycle.

  4. arn says:

    It was just a matter of time.

    I wonder how long it will take until they directly fabricate the data.
    Machines that instantly adjust data on their own as soon as it does not fit the AGW lie.
    So that NASA gets already adjusted data straight from the source.

  5. RW says:

    Seems incumbent on Tony to alert any skeptic he knows in government. Foolish to assume that they’d be regularly tuning in to his posts.

    • tonyheller says:

      I have, and they do.

      • RW says:

        So what are they doing about it?

        For example, have they told you they are going to try to corroborate your findings? What about the laws or at least guidelines being smashed here?

        Or is Chicago ‘justice’ the standard across the board now?

  6. RW says:

    Tony, are they at least marking the imputed values with some letter designation to indicate discrepancy from the original value?

  7. Petit_Barde says:

    Seems data tampering is not limited to temperatures. Fraudserts also manipulated TSI in order to push the climate scam :

    The PMOD TSI composite “flawed” results were an “unwarranted manipulation” of data intended to support AGW, but are “contraindicated”

    • arn says:

      They temper all data to push their lies.

      Muslim invaders are officially less criminal and violent than the natives according to official sources while the prisons are overcrowded with them.

  8. John F. Hultquist says:

    I have given up trying to figure out what these old weather data can contribute to serious climate research.

  9. Ferdinand says:

    Tony, I have looked at the Reykjavik data myself. Since I was not sure what “unadjusted” means exactly I have tried to compare what I thought were the v2 und v3 raw data. In v3 they are simply called “unadjusted”. In v2 you have a catagory that is calle “raw GHCN plus USHCN corrections” and “after combing stations at the same location”. No matter which one of the latter two one takes, they do not coincide with “v3 unadj”. They “almost” (differences are never larger than 0.01) coincide up until the 80s. But from there on you find substantial differences which often lie in the range 0.1 and 0.24.

    So none of the available data are really raw data. I hope that many people have downloaded all data sets that Nasa has ever put out.

  10. David Jung says:

    We need a RICO investigation of NOAA and NASA. Problem is that the FBI and DOJ seem to be full of leftist political operatives who dole out justice in line with Democrat party priorities.

  11. climanrecon says:

    GHCN v4 “unadjusted” data is indeed unadjusted, but it has recalculated monthly averages derived from the daily data in GHCN-daily. Previous versions of monthly averages were those provided by the source met offices, it looks like the original calculations, often done before the advent of computers, often have errors, and/or inconsistency in how to deal with missing daily data.

    Daily data in digitised form often starts after the start of digital monthly averages, so there is a potential distortion in v4, as it suddenly switches from the early un-recalculated averages, to the later recalculated ones. They probably should have split the data into 2 parts.

  12. Frank J Mlinar says:

    Gosh, people. Why don’t you ask for the reasons for the changes you think you see?
    For example, there are multiple sources explaining why satellite dead is adjusted, bot UAH and RSS. Then you can also go directly to the sources.
    All this speculation doesn’t make sense to me.

  13. Gator says:

    The only data that is actually data is “raw” data. Anything else is cooked, and no longer data, they are artifacts of analysis.

    Data is what you collect, and not what you create.

  14. Niels Kristian Schmidt says:


    Do you have an online database where your users/readers can look into the raw data, you have pulled, cleaned and transformed over time working with this subject? Eg an online version of the software you have written to analyze the data yourself.

  15. Jagadish Chandra Bose says:

    Climate models aren’t accurately predicting warming because the mechanism used to describe warming in the upper atmosphere is simply wrong. It’s idiotic when you think about implying that a trace gas is equivalent to a solid surface and that the solid surface equations could be used interchangeably. What an absurd notion!

    Collisions at the surface explain all warming sufficiently and without any need for magical thermal energy blankets in the atmosphere.

    If the models were accurate, we would have a precise number to calculate using the radiative equations, but we don’t. Instead we have 5 or so models that consistently fail and should cause alarm bells to go off telling everyone the crisis is over.

    Maybe it was a silent alarm because we hear nothing and yet this is the basis of classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

    A recent study admits that the models are failing and that sea level rise acceleration is trivial. We are sure to see this continue to happen as it becomes more clear that CO2 drives nothing but the short yellow bus in academia.


    Recent works have shown that the low-lying islands of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean are expanding rather than shrinking. Here we explain why, by analyzing the long-term tide gauge records, corrected for subsidence by Global Positioning System monitoring. We find the absolute sea levels are rising much slower than in climate model predictions. The relative rate of rise is highly variable but on average is a modest + 0.46 mm/year, subject to an almost trivial acceleration of + 0.0091 mm/year2.

Leave a Reply

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