Massive Data Tampering Uncovered At NASA – Warmth, Cooling Disappears Due To Incompatibility With Models

Note: Due to the very positive feedback of this post, I’ve decided to leave it up at the top spot for another day. -PG
==============================================

In 1981, James Hansen was the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  He was also the lead author of a seminal paper published in the prestigious journal Science entitled “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide“.  In the paper, Hansen and his colleagues reported (and illustrated with multiple graphs) the widely accepted 100-year (~1880-1980) record of hemispheric and global temperature changes.  At the time, most climate scientists were reporting that the Northern Hemisphere’s (NH) temperatures had undergone a rapid warming of between +0.8 and +1.0°C between the 1880s and 1940.  Then, after 1940 and through 1970, NH temperatures were reported to have dropped by about -0.5 to -0.6°C, a decades-long cooling trend which at the time had fomented widespread debate about global cooling in the scientific community.

Like their peers, NASA’s Hansen and his co-authors indicated that the Northern Hemisphere had warmed by ~0.8°C between the 1880s and 1940, and then cooled by ~0.5°C between 1940 and 1970.

A graph of “observed temperature” for the Northern Hemisphere was included in the paper to illustrate these climatic trends.

Today, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies is directed by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a trained mathematician.  (James Hansen retired from the position in 2013.)   Schmidt’s version of the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature record for 1880-1980 looks vastly different than what his predecessor had illustrated in 1981.  Instead of leaving the historically observed temperatures alone, NASA has invented new ways to portray the pre-1981 temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere.

2017 NASA Hemispheric Graph

To subjectively summarize the wholesale adjustments to past temperature data, the +0.8°C warming between 1880 and 1940 has been reduced to +0.35°C.  The -0.5°C cooling between 1940 and 1970 has been reduced to -0.2°C.  And in NASA’s 2017 version of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, 1980 is now even with 1940.  Neither year was warmer than the other.  In the original 1981 NASA graph, however, 1980 was -0.3°C colder than 1940.

If the originally recorded observations for the Northern Hemisphere had not been erased from the temperature record, the pre-1981 trend would look like it does in the graph below (black trend line).  In other words, if the temperature observations as they appeared in 1981 had not been tampered with, it would be clear the Northern Hemisphere’s surface temperatures have undergone an oscillation, or warming-cooling-warming cycle, with no significant net change from the earlier warming amplitude or rate (1880-1940) to the more recent one (1980s-present).

Why Did NASA Eliminate The Early 20th Century Warming And Mid-20th Century Cooling?

The fundamental reason why NASA has manipulated past temperature data is so that the historical climate record may conform to the IPCC models that presume variations in surface temperatures are predominantly determined by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  Fossil fuels consumption in particular and anthropogenic CO2 emissions in general plodded along steadily at about 1 GtC/year (gigatons of carbon per year) during the 1900 to 1945 period.  Then, after 1945, human emissions exploded.  They reached 4 GtC/year by the 1970s, 6 GtC/year by the 1990s, and 10 GtC/year by 2014.

NASA recognized that (a) anthropogenic CO2 emissions were not rising much at all while the surface temperatures were rising dramatically (1880s-1940s), and that (b) surface temperatures were cooling (1940s to 1970s) while anthropogenic CO2 emissions were surging upwards.  These observed trends did not support climate modeling; instead, they undermined the models.  So, to counteract this, NASA has undergone a decades-long effort to change past temperature data that do not adhere to modeled expectations.  In other words, NASA has sought to suppress the 1880s to 1940 warming amplitude and rate, and they have warmed up the 3 decades of NH cooling by about +0.3°C.  In this way, the overall 1880s-present trend will look linear rather than oscillatory, and it will also look more and more like the trends in anthropogenic CO2 emissions (above graph).   When the facts don’t fit the models, NASA apparently changes the facts.

Non-Adjusted Temperature Data Appear To Correlate With 20th Century Solar Forcing

In a paper just published in the journal New Astronomy, scientists Yndestad and Solheim (2017) have released a reconstruction of solar activity (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) for 1700-2013.  As explained here, the 20th Century contained the so-called Modern Grand Maximum of very high solar activity.

Taking a closer look at the 20th Century solar irradiance trend only, the (a) rapid rise in TSI for 1900-1950, the (b) dramatic drop in TSI during the 1950s to 1970s, and then the (c) abrupt 1980s to early 2000s increase in TSI all seem to correspond generally to the non-adjusted temperature trend for the Northern Hemisphere — prior to the NASA temperature data manipulation.


In fact, many other recently published surface temperature reconstructions indicate that the warming-cooling-warming oscillatory 20th Century trend may correlate with this solar forcing trajectory.

Rydval et al. (2017), for example, include several graphs of surface temperatures for Northern Hemisphere locations that show warming and cooling periods largely correspond to multi-decadal- and centennial-scale records of high (warming) and low (cooling) solar activity.  In the NH graphs below, for example, notice how the temperature records follow a similar track that correspond with the non-adjusted (pre-1981) NASA temperature record: (a) rapid warming from around 1900 to the mid-20th Century, (b) rapid cooling for a few decades, and then (c) another warming ascent from about the 1970s or 1980s onward.  Also notice that the mid-20th Century peak warmth is not significantly different than the warmth achieved in the last decade or two, again affirming an oscillatory pattern rather than a linear one.


Rydval et al., 2017

“[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s … [E]xtreme cold (and warm) years observed in NCAIRN appear more related to internal forcing of the summer North Atlantic Oscillation. … There is reasonable agreement in general between the records regarding protracted cold periods which occur during the LIA and specifically around the Maunder solar minimum centred on the second half of the seventeenth century and to some extent also around the latter part of the fifteenth century coinciding with part of the Spörer minimum (Usoskin et al. 2007).”


Temperature records for many other regions within the Northern Hemisphere (as well as several from the Southern Hemisphere) may also align with the original (non-adjusted) NASA temperature observations and recent reconstructions of TSI.   So as not to cross the threshold of excessiveness, only a small portion of the many similarly correlative warming-cooling-warming temperature reconstructions available are included below.


Yamanouchi, 2011 (Arctic)

Box et al., 2009  (Greenland Ice Sheet)

Hasholt et al., 2016  (Southeast Greenland)

“We determined that temperatures for the ablation measurement periods in late July to early September were similar in both 1933 and the recent period [1990s – present], indicating that the temperature forcing of ablation within the early warm period and the present are similar.”

Kobashi et al., 2011  (Greenland Ice Sheet)

Chafik et al., 2016  (Atlantic, North)

de Jong and de Steur, 2016 (Irminger Sea, North Atlantic)

Reynolds et al., 2017 (Central England, North Atlantic)

Saenger et al, 2009 (Bahamas, Northern Hemisphere)

 

De Jong et al., 2016  (Andes, South America)

“[T]he reconstruction…shows that recent warming (until AD 2009) is not exceptional in the context of the past century. For example, the periods around AD 1940 and from AD 1950–1955 were warmer. This is also shown in the reanalysis data for this region and was also observed by Neukom et al. (2010b) and Neukom and Gergis (2011) for Patagonia and central Chile. Similarly, based on tree ring analyses from the upper tree limit in northern Patagonia, Villalba et al. (2003) found that the period just before AD 1950 was substantially warmer than more recent decades.”

O’Donnell et al., 2016 (Southeast Australia)

de Jong et al., 2013 (Chile)

Gouretski et al., 2012  (graph) (Global Ocean 0-20 m)


To summarize, then, there seems to be no scientific justification for NASA’s conspicuous temperature data tampering.  From all appearances, the removal and/or doctoring of observed temperature data from the pre-1981 period was a tendentious act designed to change the appearance of graphs to fit climate models that presuppose a deterministic anthropogenic influence.  NASA’s apparent manipulation of climate science endangers the reputation of scientists across all disciplines.  It should be stopped immediately before even more credibility is lost.

144 responses to “Massive Data Tampering Uncovered At NASA – Warmth, Cooling Disappears Due To Incompatibility With Models”

  1. Reasonable Skeptic

    For me the question is not why they did this, but how did they justify the changes.

    There has to be a scientifically valid reason to support changes that are currently several tenths of a degree different than in 1981. For the layman getting the math right is complicated, but for mathematicians getting a global result isn’t that difficult. Combine that with knowledge of bias in the data that needs to be removed and you should be able to arrive at a result that is reasonably correct.

    The only changes will come from different reasons to tackle the bias problem. That means the results have to be rationalized and recorded. Any change absolutely must be accompanied with a rationale.

    I really have seen very little rationale for changing the homogenization process and “warmists” should be able to point us deniers to exactly where this information is.

    1. P van Toorn

      Years ago I tried to publish a paper about global temperature using temperature trend analysis in stead of the usual averaging after homogenization (BTW the paper was not accepted).

      One of the “criticism” of the reviewers was that “sophisticated” climate models are used to fill the gaps/to do the homogenization. I am very suspicious that large areas without temperature measurements are “filled/homogenized” with data according to climate models,which may explain why the adjustments “follow” the expectations of the climate models.

      I am afraid even they are not aware of the physics freshman error of mixing models and measurement

      1. DirkH

        “I am afraid even they are not aware of the physics freshman error of mixing models and measurement”

        Don’t worry. THey know PERFECTLY well WHAT they are doing and WHY and they get monthly reminders of their succes in their bank accounts.

        1. P van Toorn

          What is worse, fraud or incompetence?

          1. Robert Charles

            Not sure, but they seem to be very competent at their fraud.

          2. AndyG55

            No, they have been well and truly caught out.

            A competent person would not get caught. 🙂

          3. Don from OZ

            Fraud is far worse than incompetence PvanT. Fraud is a deliberate act of deceit. Incompetence is a case of not knowing.

          4. yonason

            @Don from OZ

            Of course, incompetence can’t persist in that context without the assent of someone who had the responsibility to stop it, but didn’t. So, at some level there must be deceit. Either that, or there is a vast overabundance of incompetence. At least that’s how it seems to me.

          5. AndyG55

            “Either that, or there is a vast overabundance of incompetence”

            Its called “Climate Science™”!

    2. David Appell

      Reasonable Skeptic wrote:
      “For me the question is not why they did this, but how did they justify the changes.”

      Study and learn, man:

      “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16.

      http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

      1. AndyG55

        That link has been shown many times to be a load of total propaganda pap written by a rabid alarmista.

        The guy is linked to the anti-science “climate feedback” propaganda site with links to the “rapid response team”

        PROPAGANDA PAP from the very top !!!

        But its all you have, isn’t it, rotten appell.

        1. yonason
      2. Newminster

        Read it! Loved the bait and switch.

        Climate is an accumulation of weather. There is no way that instruments, be they thermometers or anenometers or any of the other devices used for collecting weather data, can record anything other than weather.

        In fact nothing exists except weather. There is no way of measuring “climate” and the temperatures are what they are even if, as Johnson says, the measurements weren’t perfect. They aren’t perfect now — nothing ever is — except that now they accord with a political imperative, namely that CO2 is to be blamed for global warming and since the correlation between that essential gas and the temperatures of most of the 20th century is poor to downright non-existent it is hardly surprising that activist scientists have taken steps to “correct” that “error” rather than admit that their models are rubbish and then go out and get a proper job!

        As someone who has spent much of his working life involved with writing and the usage of words, Johnson’s opening paragraph is all the evidence I needed that I was in for a feast of flannel, obfuscation and the sort of linguistic gymnastics that remind me of the old “find the lady” game. (I think Steve McIntyre called it the pea under the thimble.)

        And David Appell’s argument that surface adjustments reduce the warming trend is just one more example of the distraction game. Assuming that the adjustments are necessary (though Johnson’s case has more holes in it than a colander) what they do to the trend is irrelevant. The bottom line is that unadjusted (but presumably accurate?) thermometer readings from 1900 onwards do not support the hypothesis —— correction, “contradicf the hypothesis” —— that CO2 is the prime cause of late 20th century warming.

        Furthermore those same figures do support the hypothesis that the prime cause is that damn’ great ongoing thermonuclear explosion 93 million miles away which is what most of us — scientists included — have believed for centuries.

        1. Bayou Tiger

          “The bottom line is that unadjusted (but presumably accurate?) thermometer readings from 1900 onwards do not support the hypothesis —— correction, “contradicf the hypothesis” —— that CO2 is the prime cause of late 20th century warming.”

          Then what is?

        2. David Appell

          Newminster wrote:
          “In fact nothing exists except weather. There is no way of measuring “climate” and the temperatures are what they are even if, as Johnson says, the measurements weren’t perfect.”

          Massive understanding.

          Climate is the average of weather, over a time period of at least (WMO recommends) 30 years or more.

          Do you know how to calculate an average?

          1. David Appell

            What link was that I purportedly offered?

      3. Reasonable Skeptic

        Your link is far too generic.

        I want the quality statements that accompany each and every change. Having worked with creation of official government data products in the past, that is exactly what we did.

        1. David Appell

          The methodology is explained in many scientific papers published over the years.

          Is there some reason you can’t read them?

          PS: What is a “quality statement?”

    3. David Appell

      If you don’t understand the adjustments, WHY DON’T YOU GO LEARN AND READ THEIR PAPERS?

      “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16.

      http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

      1. AndyG55

        Again that MORONIC paper.

        FFS, Appell , you KNOW its a LOAD OF CRAP.

        Everybody knows its a LOAD OF CRAP

        Find something that isn’t, because you idiocy is becoming tediously boring

      2. Reasonable Skeptic

        “If you don’t understand the adjustments, WHY DON’T YOU GO LEARN AND READ THEIR PAPERS? ”

        The paper is far too generic. It is like saying “your house comes painted” on your purchase agreement.

        1. David Appell

          It’s a very good article. But what prevents you from reading the original papers?

          1. nightspore

            I find it strange, after reading an article that cites 20-30 original papers, that a question is raised about reading original papers. Under the circumstances, this sound more like a tiresome mantra than a serious counter-argument.

            BTW, why is there so much more consistency with other data (such as total solar irradiance, as shown above (or for that matter the troposphere temps)) when one looks at the unadjusted as opposed to the adjusted surface temperature data? To me that’s a giveaway that something isn’t kosher with the present adjustments. (Karl Popper notwithstanding, that kind of consistency is damned important for working scientists.)

          2. nightspore

            I find it strange, after reading an article that cites 20-30 original papers, that a question is raised about reading original papers. Under the circumstances, this sound more like a tiresome mantra than a serious counter-argument.

            BTW, why is there so much more consistency with other data (such as total solar irradiance, as shown above (or for that matter the troposphere temps)) when one looks at the unadjusted as opposed to the adjusted surface temperature data? To me that’s a giveaway that something isn’t kosher with the present adjustments. (Karl Popper notwithstanding, that kind of consistency is damned important for working scientists.)

  2. sajave

    We are living in a climate model. It makes you feel like Truman Burbank in The Truman Show.

    You’d be hard pressed to find local, unadjusted, not UHI contaminated, temperature graph anywhere from NH to match GISS NH temperature graph.

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php

    Even these tampered temperatures can not produce alarming climate sensitivity figures. TCR/ECS calculated from untampered temperatures would be indistinguishable from zero.

    This data torturing would be comical had it not so far reaching effects.

    1. AndyG55

      To attempt to identify any CO2 effect on temperature, you have to look away from the major El Nino transients and effects.

      When you do that you get…..

      No warming before the El Nino..

      https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

      https://s19.postimg.org/y6om3sbjn/RSS_Before_El_Nino.jpg

      No warming between the end of the step in 2001 and the beginning of the 2015 El Nino

      https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

      https://s19.postimg.org/im6e8dgxf/RSS_pre_2015.png

      NO WARMING apart for the 1998 El Nino step.

      In RSS, even the current El Nino has already dropped back down to the ZERO trend line from 1997-2015, with more cooling to come.

      https://s19.postimg.org/qp3u91to3/RSS_El_Nino_trend.png

      That means that apart from the El Nino and its effects, there is NO WARMING in either satellite temperature data set.

      Considering that CO2 has climbed significantly in that time, that tells us that the ECS is basically ZERO.

      There is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING EFFECT in the whole satellite data set.

  3. Ed Caryl

    If you have watched the changes over time like some of us have, Tony Heller, Willis Eschenbach, Paul Homewood, and myself, among many, you would have seen that the changes are very small, week to week, station by station. But they always add in the same directions, to cool the past and warm the present. It’s like boiling a frog. If the changes are small enough, and seem random enough, perhaps no one will notice. Well, we have noticed.

    1. David Appell

      Wrong. Surface adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

      See Karl et al, Science 2015 Figure 2

      1. AndyG55

        roflmao..

        They got rid of the 1940’s peak, and disrupted the whole pattern of he historic data.

        Karl is one of the chief scammers.. and you believe his pal-reviewed propaganda scam.

        That is seriously anti-science of you.

      2. AndyG55
    2. David Appell

      By the way, Ed, how would you choose to deal with the biases in the raw data, from measurement methodologies and the urban heat island effect?

      1. Martin

        I’m sure you think the Mann hockey stick is a accurate representation of past temperature.
        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
        but we are still left with “why the blip”.

        Just a coincidence, right? Useful idiot.

        1. Martin
        2. David Appell

          I’m not allowed to substantive post a reply here.

          1. AndyG55

            You have never posted a substantive reply to anything, anywhere.

            Just baseless propaganda pap and misinformation.

      2. yonason

        “…how would you choose to deal with the biases in … the urban heat island effect?” – D.o.A.

        For one, I would not RAISE the surrounding temperatures to match them, as is being done.

        1. David Appell

          That’s not what’s being done — that would give a false climate signal.

          See “data homogenization.”

          1. Newminster

            According to an Australian insider (talking as he thought to someone “on side”) that is exactly what the BOM has been doing.

            “Man-made” global warming indeed!

          2. AndyG55

            Note that the homogenisation routines arrived JUST IN TIME for the data adjustments needed to try to help the AGW scam.

            You still haven’t woken up to the FACT that “homogenisation” was invented by the guys at CRU (Stott, iirc) to give justification to the necessary warming adjustments.

            BEST have devised a same/different method for the same purpose. Justification of fabrication of warming trends that DO NOT exist in real data

            And don’t let’s start on the NON-adjustments for massive UHI effects. So obvious.. yet totally did-counted or even adjusted the wrong way.

            The whole system is a FARCE… and the other 5 letter word, a FR**D

    3. David Appell

      No reply, Ed?

      The corrections clearly reduce the long-term warming trend. I would think that make you happy. No?

      BTW, what do you think of all the adjustments to the satellite data? They’re trying to correlate over 13 different satellites now.

  4. mothcatcher

    I don’t doubt that most of the changes, taken individually, do have a rationale behind them – that is, they CAN be justified. What we cannot know is, what other changes COULD have been made, and COULD have been justified, but were not. There are plenty of issues around the various biases and homogenisations: enough to come up with a variety of answers, if one is so inclined.

    It isn’t possible for us, as outside layfolk, to critique the changes and judge whether, individually, they are justified or not. But what we observe is that the 1981 record (for which Kenneth here provides some evidence of a correlation with TSI – no doubt disputed by others) has been progressively altered, both UP and DOWN as appropriate, to give an increasingly good agreement (or less bad, if you prefer) with the profiles that the CMIP program expects.

    Now, it COULD be right. All the up and down changes might be correct. But it seems, on the face of it, very counter-intuitive that this could be so. We can’t know. But it puts a very heavy onus upon the NASA folk to justify, in full and open discussion with the sceptics, every element of it. As they say “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. And there is a helluva lot of (anecdotal) historical evidence of the weather over the period under discussion that needs to be explained away as well.

    In short, it LOOKS like a stitch-up. NASA needs to explain in very great detail why it isn’t.

    Once again, thanks to the indefatigable Kenneth Richard for researching this and assembling it in the clear and challenging style that is his trademark.

    1. DirkH

      mothcatcher 16. January 2017 at 6:43 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “I don’t doubt that most of the changes, taken individually, do have a rationale behind them – that is, they CAN be justified.”

      You’ll get over it.

      Honest people have such enormous problems to accept the existence of networks of systematic fraudsters who are persistent enough to infiltrate entire organisations and replace honest scientists with impostors. *IF* there was ever an honest guy at NASA.

      If ALL evidence points to, say NASA , behing a fraud from start to finish, and NONE to the opposite, why do you assume that Hansen OR Schmidt are honest?

    2. David Appell

      mothcatcher says:
      “I don’t doubt that most of the changes, taken individually, do have a rationale behind them – that is, they CAN be justified. What we cannot know is, what other changes COULD have been made, and COULD have been justified, but were not.”

      There ARE tests to look for made-up data. These tests have been used in court cases of financial fraud. One of the simplest is Benford’s Law. I applied it to NASA GISS data here. The test was negative for its type of fraud:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/on-claims-of-data-manipulation.html

      1. mothcatcher

        I don’t think any suggests that the data is MADE UP(unless you regard homogenization as ‘made up’). Your comment is not relevant here and would seem to be a misdirection.

        1. yonason

          @mothcatcher

          Appell’s comments are ALWAYS “misdirection.”

      2. AndyG55

        Still no visitors to your putrid sewer-site, rotten-appell??

        Oh diddums.

        Of course GISS don’t make up data roflmao !!!

        https://s19.postimg.org/lcp5couwj/201609_land.gif

        See all that grey area… NO DATA.

        It HAS to be fabricated. Seems like anything else, you software application is found wanting.

        And did you know that pretty close to half of the USA data has “E” next to it. DOH !

        in-fill / fabricate / make it up !!!

        Sort of like you do.. a sci-fantasy script is all you are capable of.

  5. RoyFOMR

    Isn’t this just a prime example of Gresham’s law transplanted from economics into modern alt-Climatism where instead of Bad money driving out Good Money we have Bad Data driving out the real McCoy?

  6. P Gosselin

    Just got the chance to read this. WOW! The entire pattern of behavior screams deceitful data manipulation and even raises suspicions of outright fraud. No other industry or sector would ever get away with that kind of stuff. An investigation is warranted, if not a complete NASA GISS house-cleaning.

    1. David Appell

      Pierre.

      Consider a single temperature station.

      From 1900-1940, a caretaker reads it every day at 12 pm noon.

      In 1941, a different caretaker replaces the thermometer, and then reads it every day at 4 pm, from 1941-1995.

      From 1996-present, a new digital thermometer sends, by satellite/internet every four hours, temperature readings, including at 2 pm and 6 pm.

      Question: How would you construct a time series for the temperature of this location from 1900-present?

      1. David Johnson

        You shouldn’t even try, but GISS etc do

        1. Newminster

          According to an Australian insider (talking as he thought to someone “on side”) that is exactly what the BOM has been doing.

          “Man-made” global warming indeed!

        2. David Appell

          Why shouldn’t you try?

          PS: THe UAH and RSS satellite teams do the same, but to an even greater extent.

          1. AndyG55

            You have just proven you have ZERO idea of how RSS and UAH are calculated.

            You have proved YET AGAIN, that you are nothing but a MORONIC IDIOT with a mouth

          2. AndyG55

            If you really think there is any comparison between the collection of data in the satellite data set, and the collection of surface data..

            …. you are even more of a brain-dead idiot than even I thought you were.

            Down there with a single celled amoeba !!

      2. yonason

        @D.o.Appell

        That’s been dealt with ad nauseam.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

        The way you keep flitting from one topic to another makes me wonder if you are off your Ritalin. Or perhaps you are doing that deliberately to try to bog down the thread. Or both.

        Bottom line. You don’t want to have a discussion of the issues. You only want to confuse them. You’re just a worthless troll.

        1. David Appell

          Already, replies to Ed and Y have been blocked.

          Some blogger is afraid of replies that aren’t in his thougth bubble.

          1. P Gosselin

            David has been making this complaint for over a year now, and I’ve explained al this to him before. Not only does his lot demand to be the only ones heard, but also done so immediately – even though this is not even his house. He’s been a poorly behaved guest since his first appearances. Somewhere his upbringing went awry, if I may be so bold.

          2. AndyG55

            Gees you are CRY-BABY, appell..

            Get a life !!

          3. David Appell

            Pierre, I know for a fact that a certain fraction of my replies here never appear, even for moderation.

            Why does you site do that?

      3. David Appell

        No answers, Pierre?

        That’s about what I expected.

        1. AndyG55

          No answers to a load of MORONIC GARBAGE..

          Why should anyone even bother. !!!

      4. Anders Valland

        Why should you construct a time series when you already have one?

        1. David Appell

          Because it contains biases.

          Have you done anything at *all* to try and understand this? Many people have written lay articles about it….

          PS: Adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

  7. CheshireRed

    Kenneth Richard joins Paul Homewood and Tony Heller in mercilessly exposing how engaged NASA/GISS are in global temperature adjustments and manipulations. As Ed Caryl states above it always moves in the ‘right’ direction to support AGW. An entire series of amazing coincidences!

    NASA/GISS (and NOAA, too) have been well and truly busted here, and if Donald Trump does his job properly those guys should be in BIG trouble.

    1. tom0mason

      Maybe you and all like-minded people could tweet Trump about Gavin an his antics.
      Science be damned this should be a political temperature adjustment.

    2. David Appell

      chesire: I bet you haven’t spent 5 seconds understanding the need for corrections to the raw data.

      Correct?

      1. Bill Taylor

        this apple fella is just a LIAR???? there is NO valid reason to alter the actual reading NONE……..the ONLY reason for doing that is the use stats to LIE.

      2. yonason

        Rotten Appell hasn’t the foggiest notion of what he is talking about. If he did, he would explain it. Instead he demands the we do so to him, as if he were the “teacher” and we were the “students.”

        That’s a typical leftist ploy to deflect criticism, but we are tired of those schmucks pretending they know more than we do. THEY are the ones who want to make a CHANGE. Therefore, it is THEY who are obligated to “explain” what they see as the problem. Until they do, we owe them NOTHING.

        So, come on, David. Let’s see what you’ve got. I.e., put up or SHUT UP!

    3. yonason

      @CheshireRed

      When the warming = the adjustments = model “predictions”, something is indeed rotten in Denmark and beyond.
      https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

  8. mothcatcher

    Dirk H

    I think you’ve missed the point I was making. The co-incidence of how the data moves inexorably in the direction of the models is what needs explaining- just shouting that there is fraudulent work going on does nothing for the debate. Throwing around accusations (even if justified!) will turn a lot of people off the discussion – especially those who might otherwise have been effective allies in the challenge.

    Talk specifics, ask pertinent questions, and demand amswers. If they aren’t forthcoming, or are evasive, ask again. If you’re familiar with the example set by Steve McKintyre, you’ll know what I mean.

    1. DirkH

      We don’t need a debate anymore. We need to shut off the life support system of the fraudsters. I am DISGUSTED that anyone still calls them scientists.

    2. David Appell

      McIntyre’s work went NOWHERE, and many many groups have now confirmed the hockey stick, by many different methods.

      M&M is consigned to a footnote of history. Meanwhile Mann appears in media stories nearly every day, and he’s won awards for his work.

      The case is closed.

      1. AndyG55

        Awards for fraud.. How “climate science™” is that !! 🙂

      2. tom0mason

        In real science, obviously this don’t include NASA backed ‘climate science™’, the case is never, ever closed.

        Only the irrational would say that any part of science “The case is closed.”.

  9. ScottM

    Yeah because dividing the planet into 40 grid square — just large enough that most squares have at least one station, as the article describes — is obviously the best way to do it, and can’t be improved upon. SMH

  10. Martin

    According to the IPPC, they have detected the human CO2 signal since the 50’s, when its was cooling rapidly.

    1. David Appell

      No, it was not “cooling rapidly.” In fact, it was barely cooling at all.

      https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

      1. AndyG55

        You idiot..

        Trying to cover up the cooling with FAKED data.

        https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg

        You KNOW that HadCRud is massively adjusted to remove the 1940’s peak

        STOP LYING for once in your putrid little life.

      2. Sunsettommy

        Ha ha,

        you part of the disinformation group,who go places on the internet to mislead or flat out LIE,with the intention of keeping people in the dark. Here you will ignore what Dr. Hansen and his team who said what others said similar,that there was a distinct cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.

        “Like their peers, NASA’s Hansen and his co-authors indicated that the Northern Hemisphere had warmed by ~0.8°C between the 1880s and 1940, and then cooled by ~0.5°C between 1940 and 1970.”

        Stop it David, the bullcrap you spew out is well known in many places.

        1. Sunsettommy

          David Appell, has avoided the words of Dr. Hansen.

          Gee in wonder why…………

          1. David Appell

            You’re another one here with no science, no rational replies — just juvenile name-calling.

            Nothing makes it easier to dismiss deniers than this. You should think about the impression you are leaving with others, and not just whatever instantaneous emotion you think you have to react to.

          2. AndyG55

            Yes, appell.. he note that you dismiss all the real science, the real facts, and the real data.

            Stick to your science-fantasy writing, although even that option will soon disappear for you.

            The impression you leave as a slimy low-down lying piece of human trash, should stand you ion good stead for your future job as a janitor

  11. jimmy

    Gavin is stealing tax payer money under the guise of science. Fortunately for him he already has the answer and now he’s needs to show his work (as my Grade 5 teacher said) on how he got the answer. Unfortunately for him PEOTUS Trump will be changing things (like his budget). Hurry up warmers and copy all that ‘fudged’ data Gavin made.

    1. David Appell

      You’re not qualified to judge Gavin or any other scientist. Period.

      1. AndyG55

        You certainly are not qualified to comment on any aspect of real science. PERIOD

        You could hold a real job for more than a year at a time in, and ended up as a backwater science fantasy journalist who hasn’t touched any real science for a long, long time..

        On top of that, you are almost certainly a paid operative of the AGW scam machine.

        1. Will Janoschka

          Are you blokes having a PERIOD? Why not leave that to some fair maiden like Naomi!!

      2. DirkH

        But we’re qualified to pay them, right?
        No, these suckers don’t even deserve a prison cell, just throw’em in the mud. If they’re so smart why don’t they have one of their oligarch sugardaddies like Grantham pay them for their cherished work.

        1. David Appell

          Dirk, are you German?

          So what are you paying for GISS salaries?

          Gavis is a great scientist. The US is lucky to have him.

          1. AndyG55

            “Gavis is a great scientist.”

            I don’t know who Gavis is, but Gavin Schmidt is a low-down shyster, specialising in mathematical mal-faeces.

            No wonder you are constantly licking his a***.

          2. AndyG55

            “The US is lucky to have him.”

            So you won’t mind when he get’s deported to the UK. 😉

            Then the UK will be Lucky” to have him.

            Down in Oz, we felt the same way when Lewendopey got moved to Bristol.

    2. tom0mason

      If jimmy you are a US citizen then keep in mind Gavin is US government employee and so your civil servant.
      Whether he is a gardener or a scientist he is answerable to the US public, the US government administration including the president.

      1. tom0mason

        Another thing to note jimmy is whether or not Gavin is making up his data because he’s deranged or a political activist. If the former then he should be retired from his job and treated. If the latter then he MUST be sacked. Civil servants must not allow personal politics enter into their work, its against the rules!

        1. David Appell

          Sad — you can’t disprove the science, so you personally denigrate people and make up lies about them.

          Are you sure you’re not part of a totalitarian US movement?

          1. AndyG55

            The so-called science has been disproven MANY times.

            The mal-adjustments have been proven MANY times.

            And you have been PROVEN to be nothing but a low-level anti-science, mathematically illiterate, LYING, AGW lackey/hack/troll… MANY, MANY times

          2. yonason

            His crummy science has already been dealt with, David.
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/16/massive-data-tampering-uncovered-at-nasa-warmth-cooling-disappears-due-to-incompatibility-with-models/comment-page-1/#comment-1157933

            But, since you have nothing, you make things up to attack us with, then accuse us of not dealing with the science.

            You are a bottom feeder.

          3. AndyG55

            You are a bottom feeder.

            From the bottom of a sewer.

            Eats, breathes and talks S**T !!

          4. David Appell

            Yona: in your own words, what is wrong with the raw data corrections?

            I bet you can’t say.

            By the way, what do you think of the adjustments to the satellite datasets?

          5. yonason

            DoA – “in your own words, what is wrong with the raw data corrections?

            I’ve already dealt with that by posting this
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

            which you and others have ignored. The issue is complex, and I’m not going to waste time writing what you will never read. I agree with the Dr. Keen’s assessment.

            I have also posted a link to one e.g., from John Daly’s web site on what is wrong with the adjustments, but to which you also haven’t responded.

            See also Burt Rutan’s take on the matter.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg

            DoA – “By the way, what do you think of the adjustments to the satellite datasets?”

            I think the agreement between the satellite and the Radiosonde data speaks for itself. Pity they don’t agree with the models or the “adjusted” ground data. No?

            I have given you a LOT of material, and you just keep challenging me to repeat myself justifying why you are wrong. But since you are the one who is the alarmist, the obligation to prove AGW falls on you, not any of us. You are just a nasty little troll who isn’t interested in learning anything, only being a pest.

            Now, keep you word, and get lost.

    3. tom0mason

      Maybe PEOTUS Trump needs a nudge in the right direction with a twitter campaign naming Gavin as the one to be investigated and way.

      Now let see how outraged Appel gets cos his b**-buddie been dissed. 😉

      1. David Appell

        Why should Gavin Schmidt be investigated, and for what?

        1. AndyG55

          The whole corruption and continual adjustment of climate data worldwide, always in the AGW supportive direction, the removal of the 1940 peak etc…. needs to be properly investigated.

          Gavin, being at the tail-end of this, the person who is directly responsible of the FARCE that is GISS is the obvious place to start.

          Even if he is not doing the mal-adjustment himself, he must still know it is being done, and is therefore responsible for promulgation of this data misrepresentation.

        2. yonason

          @David Appell – RE Gavin Schmidt

          At the very least, Schmidt should NOT be allowed to get his paws on any data that isn’t secured against his tampering.
          http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-gavin-schmidts-lies-damned-lies.html

          Just because you like incompetence and deceit doesn’t mean they should be the norm.
          https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/december-brings-even-more-spectacular-data-tampering-from-gavin-schmidt/

          If he doesn’t know what he’s doing, it’s incompetence. If he does, it’s criminal malfeasance.
          https://realclimatescience.com/?s=GAVIN+SCHMIDT

          1. David Appell

            Y: You still have no idea why adjustments to the raw data, and you refuse to learn.

            Why do you prefer to play dumb?

          2. AndyG55

            We do know. Far more than you do, that is for certain.

            And they are almost uniformly unjustified, UHI is ignored, ALWAYS in line with the AGW scam.

            You are not “playing” dumb.

            YOU ARE DUMB.. Dumb is your only option.

          3. yonason

            @D.A.

            It’s not legitimate “adjustments” that I’m concerned with, it’s the dishonest crooks who are making them. …like the ones who published the data analyzed here.
            http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/Conference_ICN/deBilt_raw_and_adjusted_temp.htm

          4. David Appell

            No answers about the raw data corrections, Yona?

            Why have’t you read the papers and articles to understand why scientists are doing them, and for what reasons?

            Maybe too much trouble for you?

          5. yonason

            No “Trouble”
            http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/16/massive-data-tampering-uncovered-at-nasa-warmth-cooling-disappears-due-to-incompatibility-with-models/comment-page-1/#comment-1158371

            I can’t help it if you are either too stupid to understand it, or too dishonest to admit it.

      2. David Appell

        tom0mason wrote:
        “Maybe PEOTUS Trump needs a nudge in the right direction with a twitter campaign naming Gavin as the one to be investigated and way.”

        Investigated for WHAT?

        PS: Anyway Trump is far too busy selling America’s soul to Russia.

        1. yonason

          “PS: Anyway Trump is far too busy selling America’s soul to Russia.”

          LOLOLOLOL

          You are not even wrong enough to bother debunking most of the time. In short, YOU ARE A CLOWN!

          Lubos Motl has you correctly pegged as…
          “…stunningly sh***y subhuman crap…”
          http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/07/have-muller-or-watts-transformed-agw.html#comment-605585774

          You continue to prove him correct with every post.

          1. yonason

            Should have been “not even correct enough” but I was thinking along the lines of that stupid “not even wrong” meme. Apologies to thinking people out there.

        2. AndyG55

          roflmao…

          you mean he is trying to work WITH the Russians, rather than trying to foment WWIII like Obarmy obviously wants to do.

          Far better to get a working relationship with Russia, than get into bed with ISIS, which would be the Obama way.

          And Gavin..

          The whole corruption and continual adjustment of worldwide climate data, always in the AGW supportive direction, the removal of the 1940 peak etc etc… needs to be properly investigated.

          Gavin, being at the tail-end of this, the person who is directly responsible of the FARCE that is GISS is the obvious place to start.

          Even if he is not doing the mal-adjustment himself, he must still know it is being done, and is therefore responsible for ultimate promulgation of this data misrepresentation and probable ӺŖÂǛĐ.

          1. tom0mason

            Andy, Trump reads twitter maybe a ***strong*** campaign on that medium is required.

        3. yonason

          @ D.o.Appell- climate troll

          Hillary was too busy selling America to the highest bidders, like Russia.
          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/22/schweizer-wikileaks-show-clinton-campaign-chair-john-podesta-became-business-partners-vladimir-putin/

          And Ukraine tried to help her.
          http://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/

          The Trump Russia connection is false, just a smokescreen to cover Democrat shenanigans.

  12. Boone76

    Surprise. Surprise. Further evidence that global warming is a far left hoax motivated by a warped political agenda.

  13. Svend Ferdinandsen

    The worst is all the papers and research that are based on these dubius
    temperature series. Thousends of papers have to be rewritten or retracted, because they are based and correlated with wrong temperatures.

    1. David Appell

      Svend: What efforts have you made to understand the methodologies used to correct temperature data for biases?

      Just one, maybe?

      Or zero?

      1. AndyG55

        You have made every effort to fabricate reasons for the unjustified mal-adjustments. But you excuses are nothing but science FANTASY (ie that discredited ars link you like to use)

        The “adjustments™” are done to CREATE A WARMING BIAS, not to correct other bias.

        That is their whole purpose. That is why homogenisation was invent at the beginning of the AGW-scam.

        Everybody KNOWS that

        Even you KNOW that… So stop your LYING and DECEIT.

  14. David Appell

    Positive feedback on a post that starts with a photoshopped lie?

    That’s hard to believe, unless your readers like lies.

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/another-sleazy-photoshop-from-pierre.html

    1. Mindert Eiting

      There is a difference between cut and paste work in a cartoon and photo shopping to mislead the public. A child can see that the header is a cartoon. Did you ever see a header in a scientific journal announcing data corruption? Don’t you have something better to do with your precious time as you said here before? Did you also promise somewhere to abstain from alcohol and drugs in 2017?

      1. tom0mason

        “… promise somewhere to abstain from alcohol and drugs in 2017?”
        I don’t know if that will work. However it is reported he no longer kicks kittens.

    2. AndyG55

      And there’s that rotten-appell link again….

      … to the deepest, most putrid sewer on the internet..

  15. PaulS

    Most of the difference shown here is simply due to an incorrect comparison. You’re comparing “Northern Latitudes” to the whole Northern Hemisphere even though the former is clearly marked as constraining to 23.6N to 90N. The Hansen 1981 data is also Land-only, no SSTs.

    In a correct comparison, contrary to your claim, the warming from 1880 to 1940 is actually slightly larger in the current dataset.

    The cooling from 1940 to 1980 does reduce by about 0.2ºC in the correct comparison. This could probably be attributed partly to a large increase in stations, and more complete coverage, in the current record (about five times the amount globally). Also partly to recent GHCNv3 adjustments tracking TOBS changes, and movement of stations from warmer to colder sites.

  16. yonason

    The 1930’s heat is like Chinese food. It just didn’t stay with us.
    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screenshot-2016-03-08-at-01.03.27-PM.png

  17. Das klägliche Versagen der IPCC-Klimamodelle – Die Sonne bestimmt Wetter und Klima, nicht das lebensnotwendige CO2! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Massive Data Tampering Uncovered At NASA-Warmth, Cooling Disappears Due To Incomparibility With Mode… […]

  18. Gästinlägg: Om polarisar och temperaturmätningar - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
  19. New Paper: 14 Scientists Affirm the Sun, Not CO2, is ‘Dominant Control’ of Recent Climate Change - Principia Scientific International

    […] to NASA’s elimination of 0.45°C of warming from the 1880s to 1940 period, as well as making 0.3°C o…, the National Academy of Sciences produced a graph (depicted below) indicating there was nearly […]