Adjusting Good Data To Make It Match Bad Data


On election day in 2016, both satellite data sets (UAH and RSS) showed a 15 year long hiatus in global warming, and bore no resemblance to the warming trend being generated by NOAA and NASA.  I captured this image in a November 16, 2016 blog post.

Gavin Schmidt Promises To Resign | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

This is what the same graph looks like now.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In the next image, I overlaid the current RSS graph on the 2016 image.  You can see how RSS was adjusted to match the NASA data.

I predicted this would happen on

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.


Roy Spencer at UAH made the same prediction on January 9, 2017

“I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.

Here’s what I’m predicting:

1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper

2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)

3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.

Let’s see how many of my 3 predictions come true.


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The reason I made this prediction was because Ted Cruz used an RSS graph in a Senate hearing in March of 2015. Carl Mears at RSS then came under intense pressure to make his data match the surface temperature data.

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset.

Ted Cruz says satellite data show the globe isn’t warming

You can see what Mears did to bring his data into compliance. This was his web page in November 2016.

Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

But under intense pressure,  Mears altered his own data to bring it into compliance.  The large discrepancy became a small discrepancy.

there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satellite observations.

Remote Sensing Systems

The image below overlays Mears’ old graph (V3) on his new one (V4.) It is clear what he did – he  eliminated the blue error interval, and started using the high side of the interval as his temperature.

RSS V3 shows no warming since 2002.

The warming was all created by tampering with the data to eliminate the error interval.


The corruption is now complete.  NASA has announced that new satellite data matches their surface temperature data. This was done to keep the President’s Commission on Climate Security from having accurate data to work with.

All government climate data goes through the same transition in support of global warming alarm. The past keeps getting cooler, and recent years keep getting warmer.

NASA 1999   NASA 2016

Government climate agencies appear to be using Orwell’s 1984 as Standard Operating Procedure.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Adjusting Good Data To Make It Match Bad Data

  1. Good work Tony. It’s a shame. I love UAH, and I used to like RSS too. What ever happened to real science?

  2. Hivemind says:

    There is something wrong with this sentence:
    “But under intense pressure, Mears altered his own data to make the This is his web page now. “

    It’s as if you had two sentences & lost part of one.

  3. MrGrimnasty says:

    The Met Office ‘refresh’ their model predictions graph seemingly every time the actual temperatures fall out the bottom of their predicted range, correcting the hindcast, and add the new prediction.

    The BBC then shows the graph:- Look wow the MO predicts we will exceed 1.5C of warming within the next few years, and look how accurately the model matches the past.

  4. Gator says:

    It is a mental disorder…

    Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA or FDIoA), also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition derived from Munchausen syndrome, a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves. However, unlike Munchausen syndrome, in MSbP, the deception involves not themselves, but rather someone under the person’s care.

    Feigning that the planet has a fever, so that they can have their way.

    • Johansen says:

      …and “having their way” means more centralized control. You control through 1) fear and 2) factions. This has been the way since ancient times

    • Crispin in Waterloo says:


      One could refine it slightly: Feigning a planetary fever so that those claiming to be caring for it, can have their way.

      This is profound.

      First, who asked them to take care of the planet on our behalf? I didn’t get a vote and if I did, I would not choose many climate scientists to serve on an Earth Protection Committee. Second, where did they get the gumption to make claims not supported by evidence? They have first made claims and then sought to generate evidence by any means possible, particularly through fact-manipulation using statistical methods, which they are aware is understood by nearly no one. It is a clear case of hoping BS baffles brains.

      I vote we end this charade and require that all published prophecies about the weather and climate be based on published, unadjusted data, by which I mean un-warmed. “Corrected” is not “adjusted”.

      The addition of the error on the upper side to the estimated average is completely off-the-wall unacceptable. That is not a correction. It is not and adjustment, it is an error. If a grad student tried that with me they would be “sent off” for re-evaluation. How are these so-called leaders in the field of climate science to be viewed by the up-coming ones? As charlatans, of course! This is mere charlatanry, not science.

      • Gator says:

        I didn’t get a vote

        We never do. The left has decided that they are the definers of everything, and if you disagree you are a racist misogynist homophobic knuckle dragging hater. Convert or die.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Crispin, many of the “corrections”, especially those done to temperature data from early in the 20th century, lie completely outside the error bands previously presented for the same data.

  5. Jl says:

    Scott Adams- “But their intent was good………”

    • Disillusioned says:

      Sounds like something from the J. Comey School of Rationalization and Double Standards.

    • Menicholas McGinley says:

      Adams beclowns himself when he talks about the climategate emails.
      He has one of the strongest cases of cementheaditis I have ever seen.

    • arn says:

      The road to hell is paved with good intntions…

      (and some realised that evil things wrapped in good intentions,especially when presented by a Messiah,will get the least resistance.)

  6. Anon says:

    Judith Curry also noted the same, “ALL OF THE DATA SETS”:

    Hiatus controversy: show me the data
    Posted on November 6, 2015
    The bottom line with regards to the hiatus is all of the data sets except for the new NOAA/NCDC data set show a hiatus (with NASA LOTI being the other data set coming closest to not showing a hiatus).

    Adjustment Time-line:

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #1 (Land Temperatures – 2015 (this was the new dataset Curry mentions above))
    Global warming ‘pause’ caused by glitch in data

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #2 (Troposphere RSS Temperatures – 2017)
    Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #3 (Ocean Temperatures – 2019)
    Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought
    “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.

    DATA ADJUSTMENT #4&5 (Australian Land Temperatures – 2019)
    Heat on Bureau of Meteorology over data records rewrite
    The Bureau of Meteorology has rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, greatly increasing the rate of warming.


  7. GW Smith says:

    Virtually no one will spot their charade except a handful like Tony, whom they ignore and dismiss as no one. We’re doomed.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Yes. After a decade of this, I have become somewhat jaded, with my skepticism moving toward cynicism. As such, I have tempered my expectations – that likely only Mama Gaia and the coming multi-decadal shift will be able to stop the criminal enterprise of the AGW charade. But, without doubt the global fascists will just throw another scapegoat on the fire.

    • Rah says:

      There is a limit to how effective their lies will continue to serve their purpose. It’s called reality. Mother nature has a way of imposing reality on the most misguided and delusioned.

      • David A says:

        Also people ignore them. CAGW is always low on peoples priorities when polls are taken.
        The sun is out, the sky is blue, the sea level is where it was when I was a young boy. ( nobody believes them anymore, the louder they scream, the more ridiculous they look.)

  8. Petit_Barde says:

    So, the AIRS data are already fake and as fake as the fakest … and so all the “observations” that can be done using those data.


  9. Al Shelton says:

    I am disappointed that Trump did not drain the NASA NOAA swamp.
    How much proof is needed??

    • Rah says:

      I’d say his plate has been very full and am happy he has accomplished what he has. Especially considering the opposition he has had to contend with.

  10. AndyDC says:

    Where is our wonderful media with this story? You know, the holier than thou “Democracy Dies in Darkness” crowd. They had no problem creating over 2 years of fake news about alleged Russian collusion, but can’t lift a finger to expose this massive fraud right under their nose.

  11. Dave N says:

    …and soon they’ll start adjusting the balloon and radiosonde data to make it match, since it currently doesn’t, but curiously matches well with UAH.

    • Disillusioned says:

      ……and soon they’ll start adjusting the balloon and radiosonde data to make it match, since it currently doesn’t, but curiously matches well with UAH.

      Radiosonde scientists may need a little persuading or an incentive to make that happen. ‘They’ found out that they couldn’t persuade Christy and Spencer. Never fear – coercion is the logical next step. Christy endured bullet shots to his windows. That didn’t work. What’s next?

  12. Gator says:

    I realized today that this is all starting to remind me of some grainy old film footage of “Bigfoot”, except now digitally remastered. What the alarmists present is not data, it is data dressed up in a lumpy Bigfoot costume.

    Bigfoot all they way down.

    • rah says:

      They live in a virtual world Gator. All computer generated.

      • Gator says:


        We have never found a Bigfoot in nature, but Bigfoot experts will point to plaster casts, grainy film footage, and untested hair samples as proof he exists. The Bigfoot experts know exactly what their quarry eats, how it nests, how it calls to others, and what its habitat looks like. They insist that Bigfoot deniers are just not considering all of the overwhelming evidence and the consensus among Bigfoot experts that Bigfoot is real. If you are not a Bigfoot expert, your opinion does not matter and you are in the pay of Big Zoos.

  13. richard says:

    I have just been in argument with my sister about temp data and climate.

    She stopped communicating when I sent her a paper about mega-droughts over the last 1000 years.

  14. DocSiders says:

    If NASA destroyed the original data, then they are guilty of data fraud. In science, we oftentimes need to “purify” data due to known contamination or other shortcomings. When adjustments are made, the reasons for the adjustments and the methods for making the adjustments must be documented

  15. DocSiders says:

    The original temperature data must still exist. Review the data adjustment rationale then do an audit on the changes.

    If they have destroyed the original data, then legal action must be taken. Since there is $100Trillion at stake, some court will grant the people standing g.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Since there is $100Trillion at stake, some court will grant the people standing ”

      I hope you are correct, but I suspect that if so, another higher court would take it away.

      Maybe I am too cynical.

  16. Greg Rankin says:

    Hi Tony, I had a friend mention that the 2015 UAH data matched the surface temp. record and that from 1992 to 2015 UAH had had a number of updates where each update showed more warming. That was until their last update in 2016 which brought it inline with RSS measurements. Can you talk to this, as this seems to be correct.

Leave a Reply to Al Shelton Cancel reply

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