Cooking The Books At USHCN

In 2000, USHCN apparently wasn’t happy with the fact that the 1930s was the warmest decade – so they gave the past a demotion and bumped the 1990s way up.

Apparently that wasn’t enough though. An astute reader (Steve Case) captured the USHCN data in 2008 and again today. Below is a plot of the further adjustments during the last two years. Once again, the present has been artificially made warmer and the past has been made cooler. Temperatures in 2007 were raised by 0.16 degrees, and temperatures were lowered by 0.08 degrees in 1930.

Suppose a company wasn’t happy with their financial reports, so they subtracted money from past earnings and added them to present earnings. What would happen to the people in charge?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Cooking The Books At USHCN

  1. These guys really like Hockey.

  2. Is this a joke? The Dust Bowl happened during the coldest time in the last 115 years?

  3. PandR says:

    I think they get more money the more they adjust it. Now, they need to make sure they don’t get caught.

  4. leftymartin says:

    Steve – can you provide a link to the data underlying that plot of adjustments (or fudging, or bodging, or whatever) with time?

      • Sense Seeker says:

        I can reproduce your lower graphs with corrections, but not the top graphs, which suggest much bigger adjustments – not in the order of 0.15 but of around 0.7. Clearly, these were not based on the same data.

        Where did you get the top graphs?

      • peterhodges says:

        i am not speaking for steven but the graphs are widely available on the internet you just have to adjust the scaling to match and make a blinky

        i do not know about the original data, if the climategate releases are any indication, neither do hansen or jones!

      • Sense Seeker says:

        I’m sure Steve can give a more precise location than “the graphs are widely available on the internet”. You can find many things on the internet, but not all things are equally valid.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        (Written after Steve sent the refs to the top graph:)

        Thanks for that, Steve – that is very helpful. (Please always include such links in your postings.)

        The top graphs are from a 1999 ‘Science Brief’ and the current graph from the NASA website. Both are about the US – which has a different pattern from the rest of the world.

        Also on the NASA website is an explanation about the history of the temp grahps. It refers to this paper, which explains:

        “The GISS analysis of Hansen et al. [1999] did not incorporate adjustments to the large subset of the U.S.
        stations represented by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) which Karl et al. [1990] developed from
        the extensive station metadata available for that network. The current GISS analysis includes time-of-observation
        and station history adjustments. In addition, the urban adjustment in the GISS analysis has been improved,
        particularly in those regions where satellite observations allow a more accurate identification of stations that are
        removed from regions of human development. The purpose of the present paper is to document the changes that
        have been made in the GISS analysis of surface temperature change subsequent to the documentation of Hansen et
        al. [1999] and to use this new analysis for a closer look at the United States and global temperature change.”

        So indeed, the graphs have changed. But NASA documented and explained the changes: they use more data and applied several corrections for known biases. These changes were published, peer reviewed and available for anyone who wanted to know.

        So to me it seems that no secret data manipulations took place. Maybe Hansen wasn’t trying to fools us after all.

      • Paul H says:

        Hi Sense

        Just found the original on GISS website.

        Note the bit that says :-

        “We suggest that further warming in the United States to a level rivaling the 1930s is likely in the next decade, but reliable prediction requires better understanding of decadal oscillations of ocean temperature.” ( This was written in 1999 – when the old graph showed temps still lower)

        You can see Hansen’s graph on the PDF – very last page (Plate A2).


      • Ian says:

        “(Please always include such links in your postings.)”

        If you are going to make such condescending demands on Steve (like you are his superior – which you clearly are not), then Steve has at least as much right to demand that you read the links that he does give. You certainly did not do so with the link that he provided in his post “Classic Letter” and, as a consequence, you ignorantly accused him of dishonesty. I do hope that you are going to apologise to him for that.

      • peterhodges says:

        So indeed, the graphs have changed. But NASA documented and explained the changes: they use more data and applied several corrections for known biases. These changes were published, peer reviewed and available for anyone who wanted to know.

        of course. and with some minor adjustments to the data the observed orbit of mars fits an epicycloid.

  5. peterhodges says:

    the problem is the original data has been disappeared.

    Click to access 783_NASA_docs.pdf

    even hansen has no clue. he just keeps adjusting the data.

    judicialwatch is considered liberal, so this is no faux news trick.

    • Sense Seeker says:

      That may explain something. But I notice that the difference between the two alternating top graphs isn’t as big as it looks at first sight: in the newer version, a few extra measurements at the right end of the graph have been included, which drags the red line up a lot. Bit misleading. The actual difference seems to be about 0.35, not 0.7 as I first thought.

      Still much more than the 0.1 suggested by the lower graph, tough.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      And I agree with Judicial Watch President as far as I understand this issue.

  6. PJB says:

    Have the Hansenites adjusted temps anywhere or anytime that actually detract from the “unprecedented” rise in recent values?

  7. Sundance says:

    Hansen’s pen is mightier than the CO2.

  8. Andy Weiss says:

    There is no way to compare anything in modern times to the 1930’s. at least in the US. If you look at the State Climatic Data for places like the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, etc. during the summers of 1934 and 1936, it will knock your socks off. Day after day, week after week widespread temps in the 110-120 range. Makes the Russian heatwave of last summer look tame by comparison.

  9. C3 says:

    The newer USHCN data “corrections” were actually published in 2009, not 2010.

    For the global (sea/land) temps, the NOAA/NCDC forces did make major “corrections” this past month, November 2010. The predictable happened: they again lowered 1930/40’s temps and raised the more more recent year temps.

  10. Steve Keohane says:

    Steve do you know if the ‘adjustments’ are made to the database and are left in there, perhaps saving an untouched version. I have this older graph of the adjustments being made by 1999. I am wondering if the adjustments you show are in addition to these?

  11. Paul H says:


    “These changes were published, peer reviewed and available for anyone who wanted to know.”

    Can you let us know who peer reviewed them?

  12. Pingback: The Coming Climate Change - Page 562 - Largest Machinist Community on the net!

  13. Gator says:

    Anyone who believes these adjustments are justified needs serious medication.


    Do historians adjust the outcome of ancient battles? Do physicians adjust your vitals each time you go to the hospital? Does your boss allow you to adjust your timeclock in your favor on late mornings? This is fraud. I know Hansen et al tells us it only feels like intercourse. How long will you allow them to bend you over?

  14. Michael D Smith says:

    Has anyone tried to reproduce any of the adjustments? I think E.M.Smith was for a while. I see no reason for station move adjustments for one. Call it a new station, keep the data and location from the old station, and be done with it.

  15. Steve Case says:

    In 2008 I had been interested in the what years the warmest and coolest months occurred, so I downloaded the monthlies from:

    Results and comparison to the 2010 data changes noted:

    JAN 1979 2006
    FEB 1936 1954
    MAR 1965 1910
    APR 1920 1981 (HI changed to 2006 in the 2010 data)
    MAY 1917 1934
    JUN 1907 1933
    JUL 1915 1936
    AUG 1927 1983
    SEP 1965 1998
    OCT 1925 1963
    NOV 1911 1999
    DEC 1983 1939

    Thank you Steve for taking the time to read my e-mail and posting the finding, I appreciate it.

    Steve Case

  16. Pingback: 1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No… « Another View on Climate

  17. tarpon says:

    So we have moved from trying to fake it to outright lies?

    Now that is putting science in it’s proper place. And don’t allow anyone to tattle either …

    A regime of total lies.

  18. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    I realize this is only the USA temps but the rest of the world is probably even worse. Would love to see the Russian data adjustments or the entirely fabricated polar data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s