NASA Tampering With Reykjavik Raw Temperature Data

The Arctic is very important for people pushing global warming, because that is where they claim most of the warming is occurring.

In NASA GISS Version 2 (V2) – Iceland was warmer in the 1940s than in recent years.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The current version V4 has massively cooled the past, to make it look like Iceland is warming.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

This graph shows how NASA has rewritten Iceland’s history.


The next graph shows the magnitude of NASA tampering. The past has been cooled about 1C.

What is even more disturbing, is that NASA is now tampering with unadjusted data too. They also seem to have lost the pre-1961 and post-2004 unadjusted data. How does unadjusted data change and disappear over time?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

NASA has a long history of tampering with Iceland temperature data, and the numbers continuously and dramatically change.

V2 adjusted.

V2 Adjusted

Here is another version of the V2 adjusted graph which was captured in 2012. It is different from the previous versions.


And another version from 2014 – again different from the previous three versions, but with the 1940’s warmth removed.


A fifth version was captured during October 2017, with the 1940’s warmth still removed in their final, homogenized data.

October 2017 V3 Measured Vs Homogenized

The May 2018 NASA homogenized graph had restored most of the 1940’s warmth – indicating that there was never any reason to tamper with the data.

May 2018 Measured Vs. Homogenized

But the July 2018 NASA adjusted temperature graph removed the 1940’s warmth.

May 2018 Measured Vs. Adjusted

The person in charge at the Icelandic Met Office said four years ago : The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik.

From: Trausti Jónsson

To: paul homewood

Cc: Halldór Björnsson

Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 17:40

Subject: Re: monthly temperatures

Hi Paul.We have sent a questions to the GHCN database regarding this and they will look into the problem. Regarding your questions:

a) Were the Iceland Met Office aware that these adjustments are being made?No we were not aware of this.

b) Has the Met Office been advised of the reasons for them?No, but we are asking for the reasons

c) Does the Met Office accept that their own temperature data is in error, and that the corrections applied byGHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?

The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.

d) Does the Met Office intend to modify their own temperature records in line with GHCN?No.

No changes have been made in the Stykkisholmur series since about 1970, the Reykjavík and Akureyri series that I sent you have been slightly adjusted for major relocations and changes in observing hours. Because of the observing hour changes, values that where published before 1924 in Reykjavík and before 1928 in Akureyri  are not compatible with the later calculation practices. For other stations in Iceland values published before 1956 are incompatible with later values except at stations that observed 8 times per day (but the differences are usually small). The linked paper outlines these problems (in English):

The monthly publication Vedrattan 1924 to 1997 (in Icelandic) is available at:

and earlier data (in Icelandic and Danish – with a summary in French) at:

Monthly data from all stations from 1961 onwards :

Best wishes,

Trausti J.

The reason it is so important for climate scientists to make the 1940’s warmth disappear, is that it shows what actually drives the climate – and destroys their multi-billion dollar scam.

Reykjavik GISS V2             AMO

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to NASA Tampering With Reykjavik Raw Temperature Data

  1. CO2isLife says:

    When have you ever seen S&P or Dow Jones “adjust” or restate a historical data set? Climate scientists are either corrupt or incompetent, and neither is acceptable. President Trump should outsource data collection and compilation to S&P or Dow, and give the SEC oversight to ensure its accuracy and accountability. The people have a right to know about the integrity of the data. Taxpayers are shareholders in America so we need an SEC type body to protect the Shareholders from fraudulent reporting.

    • arn says:

      Well-there is the so called Plunge Protection Team which was created to adjust the dow in case it dives too deep.

      This looney conspiracy theory makes even sense as a short anomaly that drives the dow down should never gain so much momentum to tear everything down because all opportunist start selling at the same time
      or some foreign group of interrest try to manipulate stuff like that.
      A little bit like antitrust-authorities who exist to counter prize fixing.

    • GeologyJim says:

      You have done yeoman service, Tony, in showcasing this unjustified adjustments of prior temperature records in Reykjavik and elsewhere.

      How many “smoking guns” are needed to proclaim clear prima facie evidence of fraud? Or at least serious incompetence in a network of government agencies?

      AG Barr needs to clear house in the FBI and DOJ and get some investigators and prosecutors who can actually document real fraud and collusion (instead of chasing Russkie ghosts)

    • Great Stuff !!

      Keep holding the Lunatics Accountable Tony !!

  2. Lasse says:

    They have to burn the books.
    And stop the internet.

  3. Rud Istvan says:

    A ‘well known’ example to skeptical cogniscenti. Nice that you laid out the timeline along with the Iceland Met office reply to UK’s Paul Homewood. Would make another nice video, all by itself. Not just erroneous change, but continuing to change the change.

  4. Theyouk says:

    I’m inspired by this. I think I’ll go back and adjust my undergrad GPA…so I retroactively graduate summa cum laude…sounds good.


    Politics has infected everything…and truth is its first target.

  5. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    Compare this with BEST’s treatment of the same station.
    Although I also have some reservations about BEST’s methodology, their treatment of this particular station is much less of a mess. They identify only two break points (1900 and 1941). Their graph still has almost two equally high peaks (one in about 1942, the other about 2003), just like your first graph. They still show a significant period of cooling from 1940 to 1980. And their rate of temperature rise is only 0.67 degrees per century.

  6. paul courtney says:

    These folks will continue to openly change the data as they please so long as nobody in the press calls them on it (tony heller not included, they’ve learned that he will expose their fraud but there’s no other consequence). It’s like a county prosecutor who openly, corruptly dismisses an airtight case, knowing that the blowback will be limited to the “alt right” media (their term, not mine). The Chicago press will likely report it for a day or two, then disappear it. National media is thrilled that they have a chance to make the story go away and they won’t have to report on the pretty celebrity going to prison. I still believe it can be fixed if just one mainstream media outlet recognized the huge audience they refuse to serve.

  7. bru92 says:

    National Security Council review panel: sure hope Will Happer brings Tony in to discuss data tampering.

  8. Luke of the D says:

    I work in underground natural gas storage. We get in tons of pressure reads and gas samples and flow rates. We do not in any way tamper or adjust raw data. If we did and actually explained that we did openly, we would be shut-down by PHMSA, DEQ, EPA, or FERC and me and my fellow geologist and engineers would likely be thrown in prison for fraud. There is no valid explanation for adjusting raw data, particularly data in the past where you cannot possibly know all the variables in how the data was collected. It is one thing to correct modern data if you can demonstrate a error, but raw data from 100+ years ago cannot be adjusted or ignored. We must incorporate old raw data into our analysis as is. If we can demonstrate the old raw data is inaccurate or suspect, then we must omit all the suspect data and fully explain why we omitted it. We cannot pick and choose what to adjust or what to omit. The idea is insane.

    • Menicholas says:

      Agree 100%.
      There was no discrepancies before global warming alarmism.
      there was nothing to fix.
      It was a ginned up reason to keep their ruse alive.
      By now, so many people have been gaslighted, and they have so much experience doing it, I suspect that something dramatic will need to happen.
      Let people begin to be perp walked out of University buildings, and research office.
      And a few others collect a fat payday for whistle blowing.
      I am pretty sure we will see something different going on when that day comes.
      They will be shoving each under the bus with both hands at a dead run.

  9. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    The Icelanders were understandably annoyed by NASA’s “corrections” of their Reykjavik data. And you can see why here . . .,-21.9032703,159m/data=!3m1!1e3
    It is located in a field right outside the Icelandic Met Office. The HQ presumably?

    But perhaps someone should ask questions about the bit of legend which states “Old Central Heating Line” about 40m away. How old is “old”? Is it now disused? When was it switched off?

    Reykjavik is clearly part of an expanding and intensifying UHI. (see diagram below from Wikipedia) ” In 2008, natural hot water was used to heat roughly 90% of all buildings in Iceland.” (Wiki)

    UHI would explain much of the more recent warming, but NASA have made no attempt to “correct” that source of error. To do so would require “warming the past” and that is a NASA no-no!

  10. MrZ says:

    Hi Tony!
    I was going to wait until I had US integrated in the app but WTF the subject is up here and now.
    Please note the app is optimized for Safari, Chrome and Opera. Firefox, Explorer and Edge works as well but a bit slower (This is because how they implemented WebGL arrays). Here it is:
    Start with the button Example Script to get you going. Then compare SMHI vs NOAA versions (100% same data) by selecting dataset under System. You can also test different calculation methods in real time using Station and Grid sizes (I have help texts and explanations next to all parameter settings). As you will see the yearly average in center grades is all over the place. I will have more interesting data for your region ready next week.


  11. MrZ says:

    I wrote a post with an abbreviation including W.. is that enough to get censored nowadays???

  12. Menicholas says:

    Now that skeptics are able to reach people all over the world who never go to blogs, by communicating on Twitter, and as a critical mass is reached, they must know that their bullshit will never hold up to scrutiny.
    If one looks at unadjusted time series data from individual cities, as far flung as Iceland and South Africa, and the US, the exact same patterns of rising and falling temps are seen.
    There are some differences, like the exact years of the peaks and troughs, and the amount of variance over the year, with higher latitudes tending to vary more, but overall the trends are all in agreement in terms of the overall pattern of warming and cooling.
    And the global data prior to the takeover of the climate establishment by the global warming mafia, was also generally and broadly in close agreement as well..
    IOW, there was nothing amiss.
    There was no crisis going on in the data compilers world because it all made sense.
    And other aspects were also in agreement: Sea ice and mountain glacier advances and retreats were in accord with temperature measurements and proxies, and also with historical accounts, works of literature and art, records of sea level changes, etc.
    No one disputed that Earth has gone through many separate periods of temperature variances, on various time scales…in fact on every time scale, with some warm periods and cool periods, minor changes lasting a short time and bigger changes lasting a longer time.
    And furthermore, all of these warmer and cooler periods were readily identifiable as being separate due to the drastic shifts in various things pertaining to human prosperity.
    Warmer times were more stable and crops grew better and trade flourished and culture advanced across wide area. Cold times were marked by steep declines in prosperity, famines, disease outbreaks, wars that went on and on, and a general cultural fall backwards.
    Some larger correlations were made, such as the lack of sun spots during the LIA.
    There were disagreements and refinements, as is normal.
    Some things were held by some to be speculative, that others thought were well supported.
    I can recall seeing the Keeling Curve (CO2) in the late 1970s – early 1980s period and having many discussions on it with faculty in many departments. And reading various points of view in various texts, in several subjects and disciplines.
    People who disagreed did so openly and civilly.
    What is going on these days is completely unacceptable.
    People who are really evil, genuinely evil I believe, have gotten well along their way on some very rotten and vile plans.
    We may be on the verge some seriously bad crap.
    Imagine if Democrats led by the like of AOC manage to steal the 2020 election?
    I know one thing only: They will if they can.
    Back to this thing with the historical records, I cannot believe Trump has not gotten rid of these bastards who are tampering with data records.
    I cannot believe it is even slightly possible, let alone legal, for partisan hacks, agenda driven careerists, and people with every sort of conflict of interest one might name, from financial to political and regarding prestige and employment and huge mountains of research grants…how is it even remotely possible for the same people who are desperate to not have their CAGW theory fall by the wayside, or lose the fat paydays and cushy jobs, book deals, etc, have even had ONE chance to go in and alter historical records from around the world, irreplaceable data sets gathered over long stretch’s of time and geographical extent?
    But not only have they done it over and over again, and are still doing it, there seems to be no one talking about making sure that such information is in the hands of people who are proven untrustworthy and bias and having conflicts of interest.
    Skeptics have to be smarter about this.
    This should all be over with.
    Instead it seem to have simply gotten more ridiculous.
    Regular people are sure that the world is barely hanging on by the thread, even though right now they do not know of anything they can point to in their own lives, or nearby where they live.
    And they are sure they did not need to see it to be sure that anyone who doubts it, anyone who wants to stick to what can be seen with our own eyes, is either getting paid off, or does not give a crap about roasting our grandchildren alive, or is just insane.

    I wonder if Trump knows someone at NASA is doing this crap?

  13. WxProf says:

    I think climate change fraud needs to be the next declared national emergency by POTUS. An investigation as to who is involved, any international connections, motives, goals, threats, costs and dangers to American citizens. A strong case needs to be made to the Admin and the public launched immediately

  14. WxProf says:

    Not climate change but climate change fraud is a serious national security issue. Needs to be made public immediately. Demand transparency in publically funded programs paid for by US taxpayer dollars!

  15. Arve Furset says:

    It seems someone at the GISS office did a thorough job doing adminstrative adjustments of every month the first years up to 1920, but then all of sudden got tired “administrating” all the data and just did an all over “homogenization” for the whole year:

    (It’s in danish alas, but prof. Humlums later in the presentation brings up his problems of getting the raw unadjusted data. He also asked the Iceland Meterological Office if they knew WHY their data was changed, the answer was that it was nothing wrong with their original data. He also points to some VERY big administrative changes being done just before the release of the 2013 IPCC report.
    Lastly he compares the administrative changes beetwen GISS, HadCRUT and NCDC data. They are all different, but the trend is: cooling the past, warming the present.
    He says: “They can’t ALL be right”. Either ONE of them is right, or they are all wrong.

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.