Since 2008, 0.24°C Of ‘Extra’ Warming Has Been Added To NASA’s 1910-2000 Global Temperatures

NASA’s Massive Adjustments:

1910-2000 Now 53%  Warmer

Image Source:

In the last 10 years, overseers of the NASA GISS global temperature data set have been busy utilizing cool-the-past-and-warm-the-present adjustment techniques to alter the slope of the overall warming trend.

For example, as the climate4you graph illustrates above, there was a +0.45°C difference between the 1910 temperature anomaly and the 2000 temperature anomaly as of May, 2008.

Today (March, 2018), NASA GISS has tendentiously adjusted up the difference between 1910 and 2000 to +0.69°C, a 53% increase.

The +0.5°C Warming Between 1880-1950 Has Been Erased 

Changes to past data consistently serve to cool down the past and warm up the present.

As recently as 1987, for example, NASA GISS reported a warming trend of +0.5°C between 1880 and 1950.

Pirazzoli, 1990

Schneider, S. H. 1989 Science 243: 771-81.

Today, the NASA GISS overseers have removed +0.5°C  from 1880 to 1950 trend and replaced it with a 70-year pause.    The 2018 NASA GISS graph depicts no change, a 0.0°C non-trend, between 1880 and 1950.

Image Source: NASA GISS

If NASA GISS temperature adjustments can maintain pace with the changes made in the last 10 years, perhaps a decade from now the temperature divergence between 1910 and 2000 will reach a monumental +1.0°C.

Or perhaps NASA GISS will discover there was a cooling trend of -0.3°C between 1880 to 1950 at some point in the next ten years.

We’ll just have to wait and see what temperature data changes NASA GISS will uncover for us next.

85 responses to “Since 2008, 0.24°C Of ‘Extra’ Warming Has Been Added To NASA’s 1910-2000 Global Temperatures”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    How much more evidence do we need to show that “Man-made global warming” is exactly what it states- Man-made, by crooked scientists, working on behalf of crooked politicians, backed by the “Greens”?
    Everyone of them scamsters who deserve to be in prison for fraud.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      The REAL “climate criminals!”

    2. lemiere jacques

      well that is first the evidence that it is darn hard to estimate a global or average temperature..
      evidence of overconfidence from my point of view.

    3. tom0mason

      Indeed Bitter&twisted,

      here’s a short video on what NASA/NOAA et al are doing with their maladjustments.

  2. Tom Anderson

    NASA, GISS, and NOAA scientists responsible for this should be in jail for violating federal criminal statutes: Section 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal law.

    Look it up!

  3. Newminster

    Could this change be anything to do with how anomalies are calculated and on what baseline?

    I read sometime ago that it is theoretically possible for a given period to show a record high temperature while in reality the actual temperature could be anything up to 0.5° less than another because of the different periods used as the base.

    One good reason, surely, why temperatures should be quoted in real figures. After all, there has to have been a real figure there to start with even if — as Hansen has admitted, global average temperature is “ not a useful metric”.

    I keep being reminded of something a boss of mine said 50 years since about profit, that he paid his bills with money not percentages. For money, read temperatures; for percentages, read anomalies!

  4. yonason (from my cell phone)

    RESIDUALS – Bait And Switch

    They talk about temperatures, but show us “anomalies.” Why is that?

    That would be bad enough, but in order to get the anomalies they want, they have to tamper with the raw data.

  5. tom0mason

    The accuracy of the temperature measurements are in the order of 2/10th of a degree C (and historically may be a lot worse), yet these institutions show anomalies in 1/100th of a degree precision. Once again these academics exchange real measurement accuracy and precision with erroneous and irrelevant levels of ‘confidence’.

    1. Bitter&twisted

      I mark my student’s work down for “spurious accuracy”.
      You can’t quote a mean to 3DPs, when you are only measuring to 2DPs.
      Climate “scientists” can’t even get the basics correct.

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        We were never allowed to get away with being sloppy with “error propagation.” Not that after a lesson and a quiz on it anyone did. It’s such a simple concept, yet so VERY important.

      2. SebastianH

        Mulitsampling is a common practice to increase the resolution of a measurement. And of course a mean can be given at a higher accuracy than the measurements itself.

        What is the mean of 4+5? Is it 4, is it 5 or is it 4.5?

        You can’t quote a mean to 3DPs, when you are only measuring to 2DPs. (Improving Accuracy through Averaging)

        1. tom0mason

          As usual seb you’re wrong.

          What only seem like a reference to the subject is of course being from you it is not.

          Go away and find something about how to collate and average samples from many locations, using different measurement devices at different times. Then explain how you can average the results!

          1. SebastianH

            TomOmason, you have a 10*10 km grid with 100 thermometers with 1 degree accuracy. Half of them measure 14 degrees, the other half 15 degrees. What is the mean temperature of the area with those 100 thermometers?

            Or you have an analog/digital converter with 10 bit resolution. You make 4 measurements per millisecond and average them. Can you go beyond the 1024 steps provided by a single measurement or not? What do you think?

          2. tom0mason

            Wrong as usual seb. You are complete dross at this.
            I have professionally done such measurements and I know from what you write you have not. IT DOES NOT WORK like that! Only people that never have done this type of technical work come out with such cretinous rubbish.
            Real world devices are not identical. Historical measurements where made with what sort of devices, how did they age?

            Get back to burger flipping where you belong and leave the real thinking to us retired engineers.

          3. AndyG55

            Yep tom0, its funny to see seb stuck at junior high level of education in basically every facet of maths, science, physics etc.

            And the fact that he relishes displaying his ineptitude and ignorance, makes it even funnier. 🙂

          4. tom0mason

            Indeed AndyG55,

            The real dumbness of the idea is that a an area 10km x 10km can or should be the close to or at the same temperature at every location, and that for some lunatic reason, you ‘should’ average this to a mean temperature. Only someone deluded could think so. Topography rules here.

            Then there’s how to fully characterized every thermometer devices’ to ensure every measurement error and drift falls within a Gaussian distribution curve, as they vary over time. And that’s only the beginning!

            10bit resolution of an A to D does NOT define it’s accuracy! Lower junior high school mistake, seb.
            Guess what seb, it could be a 20 bit resolution and not be accurate at all. Defining how all the characteristics of a good A to D vary over time is quite a challenge. In the real world seb, no measurement is perfect — ever!

            However the real lunacy of the idea and it’s proposer is that this scenario has absolutely anything to do with the ‘NASA’s Massive Adjustments:
            1910-2000 Now 53% Warmer’ and the graphics at the top of the page.
            As you say AndyG55, only someone stuck in junior high science and maths educational level could even think it. Maybe he should go back to flipping burgers. 🙂

          5. SebastianH

            leave the real thinking to us retired engineers.

            Why am I not surprised? The most extreme nonsensical views are usually held by retirees and you do not disappoint. Please stay of the internet and leave the work to a fresher generation who actually know something about current technology 😉

            And please don’t use the profession of flipping burgers as an insult. That’s just disgusting.

          6. AndyG55

            seb produces yet another faceplant EMPTY post.

            Please stay away from science, physics, maths etc and anything requiring rational thought, until you have got out of junior high school, seb.

            I wouldn’t even trust you to flip burgers.

          7. tom0mason

            Are you insulted seb,

            They’re calling for more fries on table 3, move your ass!

          8. tom0mason

            And seb

            I repeat “Go away and find something about how to collate and average samples from many locations, using different measurement devices at different times. Then explain how you can average the results!”

            You can not do it.
            YOU can not justify the method used as it is a nonsense. No seb you are devoid of a rational scientific method. You seb, have nothing!

            Just another cAGW vassal.

          9. tom0mason

            seb the moron writes “Why am I not surprised? The most extreme nonsensical views are usually held by retirees and you do not disappoint. Please stay of the internet and leave the work to a fresher generation who actually know something about current technology”

            I don’t suppose that seb can think beyond his assumed and prejudiced view of who or why someone retires, and at what age?
            But why expect anything more from seb? From someone who does not need empirical evidence to back-up his presumed knowledge. Prejudiced morons think like that and seb is my evidence to prove the fact cAGW advocates can’t think rationally.

        2. R2Dtoo

          So Seb- they run a “model” 100 times and produce a spaghetti chart. Then they produce a “mean” of the 100 runs and report it as the best representation of the data. The reported metric has a 1/100 chance of being right, as only one (if any) of the strands of spaghetti can be correct. If they can prove that the actual run that best coincides with the “mean” run is correct, I will accept the results. Ever heard of the texas marksman?

          1. SebastianH

            What are you talking about? I think you missed the point a bit 😉

          2. AndyG55

            You had NO point except to display your mathematical ignorance, seb… YET AGAIN.

        3. tom0mason

          Burger flipper seb, doesn’t even understand what this []quoted paper is about. It’s high school, and YOU seb misunderstand it.
          Sheesh what a moron.

    2. Jim Giordano

      That’s what actually bugs me the most: even if they are completely right about the temperatures, they expect me to get excited, give away everything, live like a Hobbit, because temps have gone up a degree in a hundred years…. yawn.

  6. AndyG55

    In case anyone missed it,

    Seb is saying that they couldn’t read thermometers in the Arctic in the 1930s,40s

    AG: Ok so you ADMIT that since Arctic temperatures were similar to now in the 1930’s, 40s.,….

    seb: Do you really believe we have accurate temperature data of the Artic from that time?

    How can one person be so DUMB !!!

    1. SebastianH

      Seb is saying that they couldn’t read thermometers in the Arctic in the 1930s,40s

      Nope, that is not what I said. But are you saying you trust temperature measurements from 90 years ago more than today’s? What’s the error range of those stations from nearly a century ago? How many stations were there back then?

      1. R2Dtoo

        Tell you what Seb. When the vikings have again reestablished farms on Greenland , and stayed there for 200 years, I will accept that climate change has resulted in temps that lie outside of historical values. One doesn’t need thermometer readings to know history.

        1. tom0mason

          Indeed R2Dtoo,

          I mere glance at historical temperatures across the globe, and the atmospheric CO2 levels at each historic point, IMO more than anything show that CO2 does not, and never have, governed this planet’s temperature.

          Look here and judge for yourself how CO2 levels and this planet’s temperature don’t run together. .

      2. AndyG55

        “Nope, that is not what I said”

        That is EXACTLY what you said.. Your own words quoted.

        Seems you can’t even tell the TRUTH to yourself

        What a sad little non-entity you are.

        In many cases, modern day temperatures have been found to be HIGHLY contaminated by urban encroachment.

        The new AWS thermometers have major issues in reliability and in making comparisons to past temperature readings by people highly dedicated to their job.

        Child-minded SJWs like you don’t know the meaning of the word s dedication to ajob.

        1. SebastianH

          You are definetely dedicated to “your job” of making skeptics look ridiculous.

          So, how was temperature measured in the Artic back then vs. now?

          1. AndyG55

            Seb now admits ignorance about how thermometers work.

            You really are looking incredibly dumb today, seb.

        2. tom0mason


          “Seems you can’t even tell the TRUTH to yourself “ is the very problem the deluded have.

  7. Dioex

    No warming trend for 96 years, 1976 anomaly is -0.11C…..

  8. Jim Giordano

    Anybody agree that the 25 year cooling trend 1940-1965 was caused by WWII? Or was there some colossal eruption in 1939-40? Nazi green initiatives had too great an effect? Aliens at Roswell?

  9. Christopher Hanley

    One reason why the 1880 – 1950 0.5C anomaly as of 1987 was reduced to 0C is because according to CC™ dogma: “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” and that invites the obvious question what caused an equal and corresponding warming prior to 1950.
    Since the human emissions before ~1945 were relatively insignificant, as in the case of the MWP, it had to be ‘disappeared’ Yezhov-style:

    1. tom0mason

      seb says “I dare you to come up with better adjustments. “

      Simple do not do it!
      Your assertion that they REQUIRE adjustments is (as always with your assertions) just wrong.
      Unless you have complete and validated characterization data for each and every measuring device over time you can not just arbitrarily adjust (attempting to normalize the measurement errors) when all devices errors are unknown.

      Anyone advocating that type of adjustment is a scientific idiot, and should go back to helping seb flip burgers where they belong.

  10. AndyG55
  11. AndyG55

    Nearly 2.5ºC of “adjustments from raw to reported USA temperatures.

  12. SebastianH

    This is how both NASA graphs look like when overlayed with each other:
    [fabrication removed]
    So it depends on which date you compare what direction of adjustment you get. In general … does it really matter? You skeptics don’t trust the adjusted data from 1987 either, right? Why? Because it doesn’t show that 1940 was a warm as today as you feel must be true …

    1. AndyG55

      What an incredibly PATHETIC ATTEMPT to mask the manic adjustments.

    2. AndyG55

      There is a VERY OBVIOUS agenda behind these “adjustments”

      In the USA at least, basically ALL pseudo-warming comes from DATA ADJUSTMENTS.

      and the same “adjustments” have been found in MANY parts of the world, following the same pattern

      Get rid of the 1940’s peak

      Increase surface trends to try to hide the fact of ZERO non-El Nino warming in satellite data

      Latest is illustrated in the “disappearing” of the steep warming from 1880-1925.

      EVERY major adjustment to get rid of an “INCONVENIENT FACT” that destroyed the AGW fartasy.

    3. SebastianH

      [fabrication removed]

      What the hell is wrong with you?!?!?! It’s both graphs from this very article overlayed over each other in the only correct way to do it (matching the part in the near present).

      As you have been told about 10 times now when you dishonestly overlay these graphs, you are using starting points (1880) that are wildly different. Use the same data point location for the start year (1880) and notice how the 1987 graph’s trajectory shoots up by about 0.5 C above the 2018 graph.

      You can’t do it like that, but then again you didn’t understand the baseline thing anyway. Want to post a woodfortrees graph without the baselines adjusted? 😉

      Use the same starting year data point and the image will be allowed to remain.

      You really got to be kidding me.

      1. SebastianH

        Remade that graph according to Kenneths wishes:

        Notice the problem with non-matching baselines (both graphs have a baseline perdiod of 1951-1980, 30 years)? Kenneth, why do you want join those graphs at the beginning, it makes no sense. But if you do, you have to acknowledge the offset between both. If you manage to do that there really is no difference between the graph you call “fabricated” and the version you like.

        If you don’t mention the offset, then it is you who is dishonest.

      2. AndyG55

        No seb, your anti-maths attempt to hide the adjustments is a NOTHING but a piece of failed junior high junk.

        Not only has NASA/GISS changed the inconvenient warming from 1880 to 1950 to a zero trend (despite your laughably FEEBLE attempt to hide it.)

        They have also got rid of most of the cooling from 1940-1970 as shown on the NAS graph.

        Do your REALLY think this MANIC DATA CORRUPTION is any sort of science?

        Are you REALLY that DISHONEST. !!

  13. Slartibartfarst

    Is someone able to please provide links to download locations for:
    (a) The “original”, entire and unadjusted data sets.
    (b) The latest and entire adjusted data sets.
    (I couldn’t find the links in this post, or the comments, though the data sets are mentioned.)

    I wish to use these as a teaching aid for students in high school statistics (math.) classes, as a comparison example of the potential risk of custodial corruption/misuse of data that can occur to observational truth (raw data) when left in the custody of religio-political ideological zealots who may be required to produce propaganda.
    (This is for a New Zealand school.)
    Thanks in anticipation.

  14. Paer

    The graph is not understandable. There is tow lines red and blue, both from 2008 to 2016. Its not explained what they represent or how the text about 1910 fits in.

    1. AndyG55

      Look more closely. Read the text..

      The top graph is the changes to the January 1910 (blue)and January 2000 (red) temperature anomalies in each monthly iteration of the GISS data from May 2008 to March 2018

      You can clearly see that the January 2000 (red) data has be “mal-adjusted” upwards while the January 1910 (blue) data has been “mal-adjusted” downwards.

      This sort of unsupportable anti-science leads to an unrealistic warming in their FABRICATION of the surface temperatures.

      hmmm.. It WET outside !! East coast low, dumping rain on the East coast from Newy up to Port Mac.

      But gees, the Hunter region needed it !! 🙂

  15. Since 2008, 0.24°C Of 'Extra' Warming Has Been Added To NASA's 1910-2000 Global Temperatures | Un hobby...

    […] by K. Richard, March 19, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]

  16. Since 2008, 0.24°C Of ‘Extra’ Warming Has Been Added To NASA’s 1910-2000 Global Temperatures
  17. ScienceABC123

    If your hypothesis isn’t supported by the data and you decide to adjust the data to support your hypothesis then you’re not a scientist and you’re not doing science.

    1. tom0mason

      Indeed ScienceABC123,

      What kind of science adjust to 1/100th of a degree when the basic measurement devices measurement accuracy is at best in 1/10th of a degree? What kind of ‘science’ regularly exchanges measurements for levels of ‘confidence’?

  18. Donald Kasper

    The only way to stop global warming is to turn off NASA climate computers. Otherwise, we will soon see the movie The Grapes of Rapture–The 1930 Great Ice Age.

  19. tom0mason

    Off topic but probably of interest here —

    Coldest late February night on Germany’s highest peak in over a century (2018)

  20. tom0mason

    NASA has adjusted Brazil’s temperatures so much they are now at odds with INMET’s (Brazil’s meteorological Agency) for their January map of Brazil.


  21. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #309

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