Fabricating A Warming: NASA Now Altering ‘Unadjusted” Data To Create New, Warmer ‘Unadjusted’ Data

By Kirye

and Pierre Gosselin

One fellow climate blogger recently wrote on how he’s been been looking at GHCN ‘unadjusted’ data and noticed that scientists at NASA appear to have been altering them: “This is a fairly disturbing development,” he wrote.

Heating up Reykjavik and Nuuk

Cited as an example is Reykyavik, Iceland. According to Tony Heller here, “The current version V4 has massively cooled the past, to make it look like Iceland is warming.”

Heller then posted a chart showing the difference between v2 unadjusted and the new v4 ‘unadjusted’ for the Reykjavik station:


Heller also found here that the same appears to be the case for Nuuk, Greenland as well.

Hachijojima, Japan

With this in mind, we checked the Japanese station Hachijojima, which is situated on a small island in the Pacific well off the coast of Japan. Also here we see that the unadjusted data have been altered, too. The original v3 data depicted by the green curve are compared to the new “unadjusted” v4 data shown by the blue curve:

Data source:  and 

The new “unadjusted” v4 data have been clearly altered to cool a part of the past and thus enhance the appearance of warming. There appears to be a system behind all the adjustments: Every time the adjustments create more warming.


We also checked over the NASA GISS UHCN data for Syowa, Antarctica:

GHCN V3 Unadjusted: GHCN V4 Unadjusted:

Also see an animated comparison here. Here as well we see that the data have been altered.


The same is found in Edinburgh, Scotland as well:

Edinburgh(Airport GHCN V3 Unadjusted: / GHCN V4 Unadjusted:

Obviously the history contradicts the global warming theory, and so a group of activist scientists at NASA GISS have taken it upon themselves to rewrite it.

62 responses to “Fabricating A Warming: NASA Now Altering ‘Unadjusted” Data To Create New, Warmer ‘Unadjusted’ Data”

  1. Dee
  2. Kenneth Richard

    They’ve done the same on a global scale, removing 0.5ºC from the 1880 to 1950 annual temperatures between 1987 and 2018.

    They discussed cooling the early 20th century, saying “correcting” it would be “good” for the cause.

    After the 1970s, they removed ~4,500 of 5,500 temperature stations contributing to the worldwide database, with most of the stations from non-warming/rural areas.

    Since 2008, NASA has added 0.24°C to the 1900-2000 warming trend, mostly by cooling the past to create a steeper incline.

    In 2010, NASA decided that they needed to “correct” the cooling trend in the oceans by changing the data.

    And they wonder why we distrust their “data”.

    Their reflexive response: “You’re a conspiracy theorist!”

    1. Yonason

      As I recently posted…

      ““A recent letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.”

      At that point, 3 years ago, many adjustments had already been made, multiple times to the same data. If those adjustments to the same data are ongoing, even now, something is seriously wrong.

  3. Petit_Barde
  4. MrZ

    There is really no question about this.
    I have NOAA v1 to v4 collected and there is a massive cooling of the past when you compare the releases and the very same stations. Guess if v4 is the coolest.

  5. MrZ

    Pierre, I approached you with a mail a few weeks back pointing to an application that deals with this very topic. Did you look? You should, honestly…
    Check my email.

  6. MrZ

    I just did!

  7. SebastianH

    Tony Heller 😉

    1. paul courtney

      SebastionH (if there is an icon for “head deep in sand,”, place here)
      Tony Heller is a guy who used a pseudonym- for shame! Nasa and NOAA are public agencies tasked with keeping data, and multiple sources not named Heller or Goddard, right here in this string of comments, show open corruption in these public agencies. Keep your head down, Seb, or the truth will gob smack you.

      1. rah

        Tony used the pseudonym because at the time he was on contract working for the government and knew he would lose his contract if they found out who was really blogging. Just like his mentor Bill Gray who was is the father of modern tropical storm forecasting but despite his achievements and honors he never saw a dime of government funding after he told Al Gore he did not believe that there as a problem with warming from human activity or fossil fuels.

        The shame is on morons that don’t know this and then attack Tony instead of finding out why he used the name Steve Goddard for his blog.

        BTW Tony wasn’t exposed, he came out of the closet on his own once his government contract was over and he found others in the private sector to work for as a master debugger of complex computer programs.

        I would bet that if Boeing had Tony or someone with his capability had worked over the programing for the 737 Max there would be more people alive and the aircraft would be in the air right now.

        What do you do for a living Seb? I have freely admitted I’m a truck driver.

        1. garyh845

          Bam !!

        2. Yonason

          “The shame is on morons that don’t know this…” – rah

          Ahhh, but the DO know a lot of that, don’t care, and lie about it anyway. Shame is the least of what they deserve.

          The anti-science troll mocks Tony, but, as I’ve posted before, Lubos Motl (a real scientist) finds his work correct. (see link on Venus that I post here):

          …and in the very next post I point out to the troll the inconvenient fact that he’s been told about this before. This post makes at least 4 times now. Will SebH ever “get it?” I’m guessing, no.

          The thread continues, with SebH showing he yet again either didn’t bother reading the link I posted by the physicist, or doesn’t care that it proves him totally wrong.

          He’s a totally committed leftist greenie activist. Nothing you can ever show him about how wrong he is will ever change that, because it’s not about being correct, but about “winning.” And for him “winning” means his faction gains control over what everyone else is allowed to do or say.

          1. rah

            OT: In the Kansas City, MO area there are a series of old underground limestone quarries now used as commercial shipping and warehousing centers. This video shows the exact one I was trucking in yesterday (Monday) at the East-West Geo Space complex. There is a staging area outside. There you slide the trailer tandems all the way up to minimize the turning radius of the rig and call in to get directions. You don’t go in until the company your going to tells you they are ready for you. I went in and made a left at the first stop sign and went straight at the 2nd stop sign for about 1/2 mile. Then backed off the main gallery into a dead end side gallery for about 300 yards and there was the place I was to pick up. I went in and they assigned a dock to back in which was a 90 degree back around a limestone wall.
            During WW II there was huge ammunition plant in Independence, MO and what your looking at it where they stored the ordinance before it was shipped. There are rail lines down there! The audio sucks but this is the only video I found that shows the exact same tunnel complex and route I drove for as far as the video lasts.

          2. Yonason


            That’s some labyrinth.

    2. Yonason

      Oh, right. I almost forgot. Thanks for reminding me.

      Now, wouldn’t you like to post a rebuttal by John Cook? 😉

    3. Yonason


      And I know SebH would never forgive me if I didn’t post the links by Tony that I listed here.

      Of course, we could be wrong. Maybe you’d like to elaborate on your version of warmist theory of GHG’s as I quoted from here?


  8. Timo Soren

    This makes a clear case for fraud and needs to be pushed hard.

  9. Graeme No.3

    The NASA Giss Laboratories needs to be shut down as useless. The activists at NOAA dismissed.
    Altering the original data is fraud.

    1. rah

      They are the “National Air and Space Administration” after all. So I guess they take their name literally thinking they can administer the weather and climate.

  10. RickWill

    This is known as World’s Best Practice temperature homogenisation. It has become a global standard amongst weather monitoring groups to ensure the data record matches their climate models.

    Everyone is conditioned to look at anomalies rather than actual temperature and no one cares about the past. That means it is possible to maintain a steadily rising anomaly with constant present temperatures by simply cooling the past. Populations are like cane toads in a freezer; we will just die of the cold while being told it is now warmer than the past.

  11. Lasse

    They have to burn the books:

    Look at the warming in Svalbard in winter temperature during 1930s compared to the 1920.(page 23)

    1. Robert

      If you go to a place on the internet called the “no tricks zone” you are being tricked…

    2. Yonason

      Thanks, Lasse. Nice find!

  12. BoyfromTottenham

    Time for the Red Team to get to work!

  13. Gerald the Mole

    Can someone help me? I can understand one justified and well documented adjustment but multiple adjustments of historic data puzzle me.

    1. MrZ

      …and all in the same direction.
      Another thing that is strange is that the alarmists pretend warming is linear across temperature bands. They claim that if one locations yearly average increase from 5C to 7C there is a equal chance another location goes from 50C to 52C. The latter requires extraordinary circumstances while the previous only requires open water, clouds and/or air moving in from another warmer region.
      If we divide basetemperatures into bands we will see that colder locations fluctuates far more than the warmer locations. If anything the world is not getting warmer it is getting milder and this is a good thing.

    2. Hum

      Gerald, not even once should you adjust the raw unadjusted data. You may make a case for creating an adjusted data set and you document the adjustment and the reason for that adjustment, but you never change the raw unadjusted data set.

      1. Yonason


        YES! ABSOLUTELY!!!

    3. David Guy-Johnson

      Gerald, you have to understand that before 1980 nobody could read a thermometer correctly. We have only recently discovered this alarming fact which allows us to be really alarmed about today’s alarming temperatures 😉 Well that’s what Sebastien H told me.

      1. Petit_Barde

        Furthermore, at the time our staff in charge of temperatures used to read thermometers with petroleum lamps, which caused measured temperatures to increase significantly :

        – estimates vary from 1 to 5°C but the most recent corrections take into account at most 0.8°C, therefore we have yet several opportunities to make further adjustments if ever necessary.


      2. Tiger 1966

        By chemtrailng us and blocking the evening and morning sun they will throw us into a mini ice age then say oops cant fix a run away ice age. Please stop sparaying fake clouds. People look up.

  14. Pethefin

    Use of the term adjusted data is an alarmists trick to disguise the fact that what they are talking about is in fact their interpretation of the “raw” “unadjusted” data. Their life becomes so much easier when people do not ask what their interpretations are based upon but rather swallow them as scientific “facts”.

    Now that people are becoming aware of this, the alarmists are simply moving deeper into the post-modern politicized “science” and throwing out the little of what was left of the ethics of science.

    1. SebastianH

      It’s well documented. Do you have better adjustments for the raw data, feel free to let us know. Better adjustments are always welcome.

      Or do you think the raw temperatures are what we should use?

      1. Rosco

        Why adjust the historical records at all ?

        There is no justification for lying !

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Why adjust the historical records at all ?

          Because they don’t fit the narrative.

      2. Pethefin

        There you go again, SebH. Unfortunately your rethorical trick does not work with me, so stop talking about “adjustments”, they are interpretations.

        Feel free to provide the scientific explanation for the need to change the original interpretations with new interpretations. What was the reason that the previous interpretation were wrong? Why do you claim that the new interpretations by the climate scientists are any better? Why was the theory behind the previous interpretation wrong? Why do you claim that the new theory behind the new interpretations is any better?

        You do realize that each time the interpretation of decades old raw data is changed, the more detailed scientific explanation you need to provide for the new interpretation and the reason why your previous interpretations (again) were wrong.

        If there was anything left of scientific ethics among the climate scientists, they would always show both the raw data and their interpretations of it, with their detailed scientific explanation for their interpretation. “Trust us” does not cut it in science!

  15. Fabricated Warming: NASA Altering 'Unadjusted' Data To Create Warmer 'Unadjusted' Data | Global Climate

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  16. Fabricated Warming: NASA Altering ‘Unadjusted’ Data To Create Warmer ‘Unadjusted’ Data – Menopausal Mother Nature

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  17. Joshua Akins

    For f—- sake, only an idiot wouldn’t realize it’s getting warmer and weather is getting crazier. I dont need an activist scientist to tell me that.

    You all are a bunch of idiots. [Please keep the foul language out. -PG]

    1. MrZ

      The question here is not if the last decades have given us a milder climate or not. The question is if the older data has been adjusted? If so what impact does it have on trends?
      It is not that hard actually, just download the official data then compare what your local MET office reported with for example NOAA/GISS. If you have even more energy then compare between the NOAA/GISS releases.

      But I get it. People that take the effort to do some analyses are evil and people that follows their gut feelings are good.

      What are the best decisions climate hysteria movement has led to so far?
      Please select:

      Promote diesel cars
      Ban diesel cars
      Subsidize ethanol
      Produce ethanol from corn
      Ban ethanol production from corn
      Tax ethanol
      Use bio from pallets and palm oil
      Ban palm oil imports
      Ban pellets import
      Subsidize electrical cars
      Increase energy taxes
      Ban fracking
      Ban nuclear
      Triple electricity bills with help of “free” energy

    2. David Guy-Johnson

      Joshua Atkins. Only an idiot or a charlatan would insist weather is getting “crazier” when the observable facts show no such thing

    3. rah

      Joshua Akins

      If you knew even a little of the history of this earth, including mans time on it, you would know that we have been living our lives during a time when the weather and climate has been relatively stable and benign. And please inform us how the weather is getting crazier? The US, for the first time on record, had no EF-4 or EF-5 tornadoes recorded in 2018. The global ACE shows there is no rise in the either the number or power of tropical cyclones. So tell us, exactly what is getting worse and where?

  18. Walter Stuermer

    NASA is only interested in doing good science. This website should be called The BS Zone.

  19. Gerald the Mole

    Gentlemen, many thanks for your enlightening comments.

  20. Lord Vishnu

    So…data is corrected and posted. You would think they would want to keep this worldwide conspiracy a little more under wraps…eh?
    The argument presented here would be more convincing if compared to other “actual” data that would show these corrected values were actually wrong.

  21. Fabricating A Warming: NASA Now Altering 'Unadjusted" Data To Create New, Warmer 'Unadjusted' Data | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, March 31, 2019 in […]

  22. Bill

    Claims of fraud with no discussion nor curiosity of whether there is a valid scientific reason for the data alterations. Are they correcting for bias in the sensors used to collect the data? Are they correcting for differences in the time of year the data we’re collected? Are they combining data from different sources to improve their estimate? There are several valid scientific reason that could be behind the differences described in this article.

    Before claiming this is a conspiracy theory, you must understand the science and rationale behind it.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Explain this:

      On a global scale, they removed 0.5ºC from the 1880 to 1950 annual temperatures between 1987 and 2018.

      They discussed cooling the early 20th century, saying “correcting” it would be “good” for the cause.

      After the 1970s, they removed ~4,500 of 5,500 temperature stations contributing to the worldwide database, with most of the stations from non-warming/rural areas.

      Since 2008, NASA has added 0.24°C to the 1900-2000 warming trend, mostly by cooling the past to create a steeper incline.

      In 2010, NASA decided that they needed to “correct” the cooling trend in the oceans by changing the data.

      And they wonder why we distrust their “data”.

      1. SebastianH

        On a global scale, they removed 0.5ºC from the 1880 to 1950 annual temperatures between 1987 and 2018.

        Did they?

        Almost 2 years ago I made an overlay for you:

        Notice how those alleged 0.5°C come into existence? By choosing two years where that is the case. Had you chosen 1900 vs. 1960 the temperature differences would perfectly match. They also match for 1890 and 1950 … but they don’t when starting at 1880 … have you ever asked yourself why that could be? You know … what skeptics usually do? Asking themselves if what they read and hear could be true? And why it wouldn’t 😉

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Notice how those alleged 0.5°C come into existence?

          Your overlay has a starting point that is 0.4°C different in 1880 for the 1987 vs. 2018 graph.

          Provide an overlay that shows the same trend starting point for 1880 and notice how they do not match up.

          I’ve pointed this out to you for 2 years, and yet you still trot this out.

        2. MrZ

          Seb, you have more brains than the typical alarmist.
          Have you done any source data analyses yourself? I’m not here all the time so please excuse me if I have missed it but it looks as if you are mostly referencing material of others.
          Any personal views on GHCNMv4 based on your own analyses?

    2. paul courtney

      Bill: If you’re really curious, why don’t you direct your questions to the people doing the adjusting? You could ask them why they refer to the end product as “unadjusted”? Why do you assume that the host hasn’t asked about these adjustments? I just love commenters who walk in the room, listen for 2 seconds, and presume that nobody ever thought to ask any questions before they entered the discussion.

  23. Mike

    Just read the description you quacks: “For the moment, GHCNm v4 consists of mean monthly temperature data only. Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures as well as monthly total precipitation will be included at a later date.”

    It’s not yet complete.

    1. MrZ

      GHCNMv4 was moved from beta state already last year.
      True they do not include min/max but they use GHCND as base. From that you can get min/max. There are published rules how you do that ie how many days can be missing etc.
      Funny you imply that any change must be a result of an unfinished release. Then you actually agree raw data should not be changed.

    2. MrZ

      Here is SMHI vs GHCNMv4 for January in Sweden. Both are 5deg gridded. http://cfys.nu/graphs/SMHIvsGHCNMv4.png

      Difference is caused by station selection and adjustments.
      There is also an ITSI set (from which GHCNMv4 is extracted) that is almost identical with SMHI.

      Quack quack!

  24. Yonason

    The following from Dr. Curry seems to me a case of rediscovering what we should already know, that adjustments to correct for presumed “bad” data are, at best, not helpful.

    ”The analysis presented here indicates that, outside the immediate war-time period, these adjustments are distorting and degrading the data rather than improving it.”

  25. MrZ

    PG trying to get through. Did you receive my mail?

  26. steve case

    The sea level record via satellite data is another example of data that has changed over the years:
    The current release
    from Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group has so many changes it’s difficult to graph them out.

    NASA’s GISSTEMP puts out a Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) on a monthly basis and about 25% of the monthly entries are rewritten. The earliest edition from 1997 when compared to today looks like this:
    NASA does not archive the monthly LOTI releases and only a fraction of them are available on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine, but it is reasonable to conclude that since 1997 nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the data:
    If you save the preceding data link and compare it with the new edition which will come out in a few weeks, it’s a good bet that several hundred changes will have been made. This goes on every month.

  27. eric

    Your hachijojima graph is citing two different stations about 45 miles (and much elevation) apart. But your findings are still correct when comparing v3 and v4 of the same station. I encourage you to correct your citation, because a friend whom I debate this topic with almost dismissed the argument when he discovered they were different stations. You want to compare these two:



  28. NASA Altering ‘Unadjusted’ Data To Create Warmer ‘Unadjusted’ Data

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  29. P.A.Semi

    A related comment to a former article:

    Veretenenko et al. have been analysing ISCCP-D2 dataset. There are more ways to look at data in a dataset, but also in this one study there is visible a sharp step (or discontinuity) at september 2001.
    I’m very glad someone else have witnessed this ISCCP-D2 dataset…

    Plotting average temperature of various cloud levels from this dataset has got almost a 2°C step at september 2001 (sic!), very probably they have changed a classification, what are low and middle clouds…

    Temperature trend looks like normal oscilation with no significant trend, then almost a 2°C step upward, and again normal oscilation with no significant trend…

    (mean cloud temperature, middle level clouds, anomaly from average, all regional series mixed in a single chart, from ISCCP-D2 dataset)

    Could they write in a language of numbers onto the Wall of a Dataset more clearly, WHO compelled them for that (not only this but overall) AGW fraud?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy