Over the past 15 years, NASA and NOAA have turned a long term US cooling trend into a warming trend. But it is even worse than that, because almost every year they make the past cooler and the present warmer.
The animation below starts at the NASA 1999 version, and progresses through 2013 – showing how they year after year tweak the measured cooling data to create the appearance of a warming signal – which does not exist in the thermometer data.
What is really ugly about this is that they overwrite the data in place, don’t archive the older versions, and make no mention of their changes on the web pages where the graphs are displayed. There should be prominent disclaimers that the actual thermometer data shows a 90 year cooling trend in the US, and that their graphs do not represent the thermometer data gathered by tens of thousands of Americans over the past 120 years.
Fortunately, their data has been archived by other people over the years, so the history of these alterations is not lost. The web addresses shown below are the original addresses where the data was archived from.
1999 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2001 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2012 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
2013 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
NOAA does have discussions on obscure web pages describing their thought process behind the alterations, but few people know about this. The alterations are highly subjective, and could just as easily go the other way – making the present cooler due to urban heat island effects.
These alterations are being made by government employees with a strong vested interest in global warming, who should recuse themselves because of their overt conflict of interest. Their boss, the President of the United States, has made it clear that he will not accept any data which does not promote global warming theory. That is pretty strong motivation to generate warming data.
IT does not surprise me that they have been adjusting their adjustments. They keep going back through looking for more step changes. Do you know if they have been adjusting the raw data? — John M Reynolds
I have no reason to believe that NOAA has altered the raw US data, other than making some stations disappear.
I do not know if GISS has but Jeff Masters certainly does and I think he gets his data from GISS or another US givernment outlet.
I watch the weather several times a day. I have seen the morning lows change as much as 2 or three degrees. For example the original record for April 6, 2014 was 44 °F and was changed to 48 °F on April 8, I just checked and it hasn’t changed from that.
At 6:29 am on April 16th the “history for April 15 ” was
Max Temperature 69 °F NOW 72 °F
Min Temperature 65 °F NOW 41 °F
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 hourly data
At 6:21 am the next day looking at “history for April 15”
5:55 AM 35.1 °F
6:55 AM 34.0 °F
11:55 PM 35.6 °F
Earlier this year Wunderground (Jeff Masters) wiped out freezing temperatures and 6 inches of snow in my area that happened on the 11th of February and replaced it with temperatures just above freezing and rain with a trace of snow.
Last year was even worse. I was keeping track of the days with highs 90°F and above last summer. There was one day at 95°F and 4 days at 91°F as I mentioned several times last fall at WUWT.
I looked at the data this spring and low and behold there are now FIFTEEN DAYS instead of FIVE!!! Ten of those days occurred by the end of July so I would not have missed them. (see below)
As a Lab manager of a Quality lab for decades I learned the tricks for spotting ‘Flinching’ and other telltales of data fraud. (I got fired for catching the upper levels pet lab tech who was ‘Adjusting’ numbers so batches would pass and ship.)
One method for catching fraud is to look at the last digit and determine the count. If the data set is large enough the numbers should be equal. Since this is high temperature you would expect either equal numbers or a tapering off with more numbers at 0,1,2 3 than at 7,8,9
There were 105 days 90 and above for the three years I looked at so that is enough data to see a trend. The data is in °F but looked funny so I also included °C.
Temperature ———- COUNT
(32.2 °C) 90 °F..——..6 ALL in 2013
(32.8 °C) 91 °F..——..41
(33.3 °C) 92 °F..——..4 ALL in 2013
(33.9 °C) 93 °F..—–..10
(34.4 °C) 94 °F..——..0
(35.0 °C) 95 °F..—–..17
(35.55 °C) 96 °F..—..10
(36.1 °C) 97 °F..——..0
(36.67 °C) 98 °F..—..16
(37.2 °C) 99 °F..-..0
(37.77 °C) 100.°F-..1
Now that distribution is weirder than snake shoes. ALL the data for 90 °F and 92 °F is in 2013 and it just so happens to add up to the extra 10 above 90 °F that wasn’t in the same data set last year.
If you discount the 90 °F and 92 °F from 2013 (since they just mysteriously appeared) you get
(32.8 °C) 91 °F
(33.9 °C) 93 °F
(35.0 °C) 95 °F
(35.55 °C) 96 °F
(36.67 °C) 98 °F
(37.77 °C) 100.°F
32.2 °C is 90 °F where as 89 °F is 31.67 °C so that might explain the promotion of 89°F to 90°F as numbers got changed back and forth from °C to °F to °C. But it does not explain all the 96 °Fs instead of 97 °F which is 36.11 °C. As I said weird.
As a lab manager I would be asking some very pointy little questions of anyone who reported these type of numbers over a sixth month interval.
Steven, I have just posted for the second time on WUWT’s post on “On ‘denying’ Hockey Sticks, USHCN data, and all that – part 2” about the RAW data graphs that AW posted as Graphs 7 & 9.
Have you looked at them, can you confirm there overall shapes?
They are not like anything I have ever seen before for Global/USA temperatures, the Global one shows 2 1.5 degree step changes over 1 to 2 years and the USA one shows 4 0.5 degree Step Changes over short periods.
Those graphs if correct completely destroy any relationship with CO2, no wonder the Alarmists are fudging and smoothing everything out.
can you post a link?
Graph 7 as you call it is land area only. That is why it looks different. — John M Reynolds
The 9th Graph still looks nothing like the accepted graphs of the USA.
The 7th should still look like the overall Global Data, but it doesn’t, the Oceans will smooth it out but not that much.
Adding the Water temperature to the Air temperature is wrong anyway, it should either be Air to Air or Water to Land Surface.
I think one of the themes in all of this that is the most important is right there in the title of this post. “NASA Is Constantly Cooling The Past And Warming The Present”. When will these fraudsters let the past alone? Can they never stop “adjusting” the past?
What “justification” will Watts & crew offer for the constant, unceasing modification to the past?
Perhaps if Americans knew that the temperature record is just propaganda done by people who have no right to be called scientists then we might be able to talk to them about the fact that the trace gas CO2 has a vanishingly small impact on the planet’s temperature at best.
I have been following your blog for about a year now, and what you have posted as far as real data agrees with what I see every day here in the tropics. For the years between 1989 and 1996, it seemed to be getting warmer during the summer months (I only live 13 degrees north of the equator), with temperatures reported in the low to mid nineties. We also had severe drought from 1992 to 1995 as well as a severe earthquake in 1993.
However, from 1998 on, summer temperatures seemed to decilne year over year to where the daytime temp (without heating index) hovered between 86 and 89, rarely going over 90 degrees F. That is, until this year, where we are reaching 90 to 91 almost daily. I expect, as in 1997, we are experiencing a major El Niño event.
I am not a scientist, but I do pay attention to what is going on where I live. Based on what I experience here, day to day, I’d say that people who base their careers on models cannot be trusted. I worked for the Gov’t for a time and I had to endure things such as data massaging and anamoly reduction so that spikes could be removed from what was really helpful, the raw data.
One other thing, I used to track typhoons and I was very accurate, to within twenty miles of actual track from predicted, for the next twelve hours. That was because I ignored data more than 18 hours old (today, computer tracking software cannot predict a typhoon accurately beyond three hours, not nearly enough time to warn if a storm has veered). Now, I’m not saying to ignore old temperature data, but I will say that the less accurate measurements of the past, due to lax record keeping or the lack of equipment sensitivity (mercury thermometers), is suspect and should be treated accordingly.
Anyway, I just thought I’d say something about your excellent blog. As for birth certificates, you might want to know that in the ’60’s birth certificates were not always issued on the spot. Sometimes they were issued two to three years after birth and even in another city or country.
It was happening before Obama – he is merely an enabler. The greatest enabler is the $$$.
Take a look at Barry Rubin’s The Silent Revolution for a better take.
making the present cooler due to urban heat island effects.
That’s how it should be, of course. The UKMO regularly shows nightime temps 3-5 °C colder than the towns. That’s a lot when the town temps are at 12°C.
He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past.
Bleakhouses said exactly what I thought at first, but then I realised that this is a lot more difficult now. Stalin could order people airbrushed out of photos and virtually no-one would have any data – ie the original photos – to prove it. But the internet never forgets, everyone potentially has access to all the available data and Steven is proving every day that the past is no longer controllable. For which he has my most grateful thanks 🙂
On a different note, what’s special about 1970? From eyeballing the graphs there seems to be a pivot point where all the data before 1970 has been cooled and all the data since has been warmed. Why pick on that year?
It is no more difficult now then it has ever been. All that has ever been required is a healthy dose of confirmation bias and marginalization if the dissident voice. SOP.
Excellent question. There was a large amount of cooling before 1970 which has been reduced, and the warming after the 1970s has been exaggerated.
However, sites can be taken down off the internet and data removed. The first time I did a search to find out for myself about Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger it was easy to locate original quotes and writings showing how bad they were. It has become harder to to find material from that era with a regular Google search just five years later.
Some things do, in fact disappear off the internet, especially things of a sensitive political or military nature. If you run across something that seems of long term importance to you and is only available on one or two sites, your most prudent course is to make a copy of the page for later reference.
Little known fact. Stalin was the inventor of Photoshop.
(j/k! I know he is not).
Since the adjustments are cumulative, the rotation point will slowly move to the right…it started out in the early 60’s but in 10 or 15 years the rotation point will be to the right of where we are now. Our present will have to be cooled to show a warming trend…
NASA = Minitrue
Governments exist to control. Orwell had it spot on. The past will be rewritten. Why would climate data be any different ? Winston Smith has always existed. It matters not who is in power. The unelected, unaccountable plutocratic bureaucracy has always been obsessed with power and control. Globaloneywhatever is just one cult of many they will use to brainwash and manage the masses. This is why gov’t needs to be severely limited and a part-time function including the bureaucracy.
It isn’t always the same, although the same patterns come up again and again. For example, the old (late 19th-early 20th century) British establishment and the 20th century WASP establishment in the US had a genuine sense of obligation to the public and the nation at large. That’s been lost with the rise of the new Political Class (as Peter Oborn calls it in his book The Triumph of the Political Class, which I recommend highly (although it’s about the UK).
June 27, 2014 at 6:33 pm
“It isn’t always the same, although the same patterns come up again and again. For example, the old (late 19th-early 20th century) British establishment and the 20th century WASP establishment in the US had a genuine sense of obligation to the public and the nation at large. ”
BS. Very intensive history rewriting regarding UK empire history and both World Wars. Genuine sense of obligation to their very own interests.
One wonders if it is due to other factors, like more psychopaths or sociopaths able to adapt given more educational opportunities and a higher density of available ‘prey’ in today’s higher density population centers …
Witness how Obama was able to sweep the table clean NOT with honest debate in Illinois but by dirty tricks on his opponents each step of the way … even other blacks were fair game in his climbing the ladder to political office as his way was cleared. Couple that with a few power-hungry brokers that had no sex appeal to run for office themselves (the David Axelrods and Valerie Jarretts in Chicago) and one has the convergence of the ‘perfect storm’. The media being irrelevant, serving as a simple avenue to get the highly-palatable democrat-party message out to the low info voters. Hope and change was a great slogan, and ended there.
It doesn’t matter at all what technical reason the warmists cite for their forgery; every sane person can see the result. This is corrupted science. We can work our ways backward from that. The lukewarmers are wrong. The warmists’ models are junk. There’s no Global Warming at all. That’s reality. The deniers are the government scientists. Not the first time it happens to a consensus. They should have gotten used to this by now.
I keep leaving the same comment, sorry, but want people to understand. I run weather plots in Canada during winter for ski operations. If anybody were to fiddle with the data I paid people (guides) to collect for whatever reason, I would be severely angry and would seek damages. It’s ok to do science, but you must acknowledge and protect the raw data collected. Field work is hard, and people get up early in the morning to collect it. Not to mention the risks. I thank Steven (and others) for helping to bring this point to the public.
Collecting raw data during winter is a raw business. Done it myself.
Then can you just imagine how pissed those guys are that design computer climate models?
One would hope that the Cult of Jim Hansen might have quit the nonsense at NASA after his retirement, but no such luck.
Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog.
The past must constantly be cooled because the present is not heating up as the lies say it is.
Therefore in order to keep the lies of warming believable and to keep their jobs, those responsible for said lies must cool the past.