More Data Shenanigans At NASA. “Unadjusted” Data Get Whole New Definition: No Longer “Raw”, But Now “Quality Controlled”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

By Kirye
and P. Gosselin

What’s with NASA GISS? The data shenanigans there seem to have no end.

Most of us have noticed that with every new version of temperature data that gets generated by NASA GISS, the more warming that comes with it. The first half of the 20th century often gets cooled while the present gets warmed. This has been shown repeatedly.

One example is Cuiaba, Brazil. Though in this example the past appears not to have been cooled, the more recent v4 “unadjusted” data have been warmed by some 1.0°C throughout since 1960.

Now the early 20th century in Cuiaba, Brazil is not warmer than the early 21st century. Presto, warming! Data: NASA GISS.

Now “unadjusted” data get a new definition

But another peculiar thing has been found. It seems NASA GISS cannot make up its mind on whether the “unadjusted” data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

When we look at the Key beneath the Cuiaba temperature chart posted by NASA GISS here, we see that “unadjusted” gets called “quality controlled” (marked yellow):

Yet, when we go back to the archives and look at the data plot for Cuiaba, the Key beneath the chart has a different definition for “unadjusted data”. Here they were defined as “raw data as reported by the weather station”!

Well, which is it? Is this another adjustment phase they snuck in? The page from NASA website was saved on June 20.

It’s bad enough that NASA GISS is taking it’s Version 3 “unadjusted” data and adjusting them to Version 4 “unadjusted” (warming them up), but now NASA GISS number crunchers seem unable to make up their minds whether the unadjusted data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

With all the confusion surrounding all the different versions and changing definitions, we have to wonder what on earth is going on at NASA GISS.

Data used to be raw, but now “quality controlled”

NASA used to claim that GHCN unadjusted are the raw data as reported by the weather station. But now they say that GHCN unadjusted are “quality controlled monthly means constructed by NCEI and other groups from raw data”.

A lot of fishy data business going on at NASA GISS.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

25 responses to “More Data Shenanigans At NASA. “Unadjusted” Data Get Whole New Definition: No Longer “Raw”, But Now “Quality Controlled””

  1. xenomoly

    Has anyone been keeping a version by version set of these data as they have been released over the years? I recall a couple decades ago when there was a marked cooling between the late 40s and late 70s – but that has all disappeared now. When I talk to friends about it and they pull up the GISS — its nigh impossible to get them to accept that these data have gone through round after round of revisions where the past has been cooled and the present heated.

    Tony Heller does a decent breakdown — but he is one of the people that has been smeared as being verboten to listen to.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Until the 1980s it was the “consensus” that the Earth had warmed 0.6°C between 1880-1940 and then cooled by -0.3°C between 1940 and 1970.

      After data manipulation and “correction” to fit the models, the 0.6°C warming trend has been reduced to 0.1°C, and the -0.3°C cooling trend has been reduced to -0.05°C. They’ve changed the data to make the trend more linear and less oscillatory, which was inconvenient. This way it looks like human CO2 emission are responsible.

    2. Henning Nielsen

      Yes, the alarmists are very busy smearing Tony Heller. Which means they fear him.

  2. richard

    It doesn’t really matter what they do as the one thing they cannot fake is agriculture. This is a great proxy for weather and year on year the world is producing bumper harvests based on benign weather. One day everyone will wake up to the fraud.

    1. Aard Knox

      Another good source is old newspapers.
      Tony Heller spends a lot of time reading them.
      https://realclimatescience.com/2019/07/this-date-85-years-ago-2/

    2. Anton

      Yes but that might be because higher CO2 concentrations are good for crop growth.

  3. iggie

    Here is the ‘original’ GISS NASA data for Cuiaba Prior to all the changes made after 2010. I think it’s version 2.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303833610002&dt=1&ds=1

    Also a list of data sets with various year periods.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?d=1&ds=0&name=Cuiaba

    Hope this helps.

  4. Christopher Hanley

    How on Earth can a temperature allegedly recorded in 1900 be adjusted over a century later by 2C? Seriously.
    After the Paraguayan War (1864-1870) Cuiabá was “…forgotten by the rest of the country, to such an extent that the Imperial and later the Republican governments of Brazil used to use it as a site of exile for troublesome politicians. Isolation allowed it to preserve many of the oldest Brazilian ways of life until well into the twentieth century …” (Wiki).
    That would not be untypical of much of the supposed surface record well into the twentieth century — it’s a fantasy.

  5. Christopher Hanley
  6. iggie

    Is this the latest graph (version 4)?

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=BR000083361&ds=14&dt=1

    I guess they just make it up as they go along.

  7. iggie

    xenomoly

    This is one seemingly up-to-date graph from NASA GISS.
    It shows an 0.6C increase from around 1905 – mid 1940s and another 0.6C increase from mid-1940s to 2018.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    Of course, there could be others.

  8. More Data Shenanigans At NASA GISS Exposed – Menopausal Mother Nature

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

  9. Joe

    False Moon landings and phony climate data. What else is new?

    Never A Straight Answer.

    1. Yonason

      I wonder what “Joe” is trying to tell us? He’s not saying these guys think we’ve never been to the moon, is he?
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/06/nasa-astronauts-skeptical-of-man-made.html?

      Where do you suppose “Joe” got such a “clever” idea? Hmmm, I wonder.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/11/stephan-lewandowskys-moon-landing-paper-scathingly-criticized-by-team-of-psychologists-in-a-new-book/

  10. Watch Tony Heller “John Dillinger – An Early Victim Of Climate Change” | WeatherAction News

    […] we slowly ‘quality control‘ our past so that it fits the current narrative, we so lose the ability to understand the […]

  11. Watch Tony Heller "John Dillinger - An Early Victim Of Climate Change" - Zax News

    […] we slowly ‘quality control‘ our past so that it fits the current narrative, we so lose the ability to understand the […]

  12. bonbon

    Who is doing what here?
    It looks like NASA takes NOAA data.
    Remember NOAA whistleblower Dr. John Bates of ClimategateII in 2017?

  13. Yonason

    Thanks, bonbon. I’d forgotten.

    When one’s goal is to “maximize warming and minimize documentation,” one is not a scientist, he is a political hack. Thanks to Dr. Bates we know data integrity at NASA/NOAA is lax, at best.
    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

  14. Greg Martinetti

    You never even mention what the purpose of said “quality control” is in this article. You can’t just start pointing fingers at NASA without even knowing what they are doing! Be nice to know whatever that is before I start jumping to ridiculous conclusions Thanks!

    1. Mikky

      Quality Control used to mean (and should still mean) simple flagging of data deemed to be suspect. The original RAW data should be retained, plus an index saying what the error is believed to be, usually “impossibly” high or low value, usually occurring in sequences from defective thermometers.

      1. Yonason

        @Mikky

        I wonder if he’s one of those types who compensate for their lack of useful skills or knowledge by “raising issues?”

        Problem with NASA is, all data that doesn’t confirm their bias is “suspect,” regardless of how meticulously the records were made and kept.

    2. Yonason

      ”You never even mention what the purpose of said “quality control” is in this article.” – Greg M.

      Why don’t you ask NASA, Greg. It’s their term. If they don’t define it, are you suggesting that we make something up?

      See the link I gave above for problems with NASA as revealed by someone at NASA who was trying to fix them.
      https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/23/more-data-shenanigans-at-nasa-unadjusted-data-get-whole-new-definition-no-longer-raw-but-now-quality-controlled/comment-page-1/#comment-1301751

      NASA screws up, NTZ points it out, and you get angry with them?! Seriously.

  15. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #369 | Watts Up With That?
  16. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #369 - Scienceexist
  17. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #369 – All My Daily News

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

Close