GISS record changes

Changes? Well hardly. Apparently the shocking “dog bites man” story of minuscule changes in GISS global anomaly data is making the rounds on denier sites.

A poster here embedded the copy/pasted accusation in an off topic thread, it goes thus:

Looks like Hansen/GISS is up to their old tricks;

Here are the June global temperature anomaly comparisons:


RSS .075

UAH .001

GISS is way above the other two, but it does not end there apparently 2007 has now replaced 1998 as the second hottest year on record this was achieved not by rigorous scientific study and evaluation but by sleight of hand an the part of GISS.

This has been achieved by lowering the 1998 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.56 , and raising the 2007 J-D average temperature anomaly to 0.57. Last month they were viceversa.

This of course would give the impression that global temps are ever increasing keeping Hansen et al in a job. One day people like Hansen will be called to account for their actions, i hope i live long enough to see that day.

He asks

how can GISS change the temp of a year, 11 years after the
fact. Also how can GISS have June anomoly at 0.63 a whole 0.55 above
RSS and .629 above UAH? Surely GISS must be in error.

Firstly about the insinuation of fraud in the name of giving of an impression of greater warming. Here’s the current temperature record from GISS’s website:

Now here’s a close up of the last few years before and after the new adjustment:

Before After

Shocking. (Yes, they are identical pictures did anyone expect a 0.01oC to show?). So, conspiracy theorists would have us believe NASA scientists are manipulating the data in a way that does not show, not telling anyone about and…what exactly? This is supposed to restore NASA GISS’s slashed funding?

But why would they change the temperature reading of a year eleven years after the fact? Let’s not forget that this record is not taken from some giant global thermometer, the reading recorded year by year, written on a piece of paper and then put in a drawer. This is a complicated reconstruction made from thousands of data sources, subject to active research and the algorithms that turn it into a table of anomalies is constantly being scrutinized and refined. Why would anyone expect that it would not change as improvements are made?

One of the other questions was why is GISS so much higher. Well, I have not verified this claim, this may be an apples to oranges comparison, preliminary numbers, incomplete data filled in with estimates, I have no idea. But one thing to remember about the GISS record is that it is the only one that includes the arctic, which is one of the fastest warming regions in the world.

I wonder how our poster knows there was no rigorous study involved, but rather it is “sleight of hand”? He doesn’t, of course. It is pure paranoia (if he believes it himself). I recall a lot of yelling when NASA adjusted a temperature down.

Up or down, it is all part of the plot!

169 thoughts on “GISS record changes

  1. No Ian, I have not done that. But since no one has ever seen CRU’s methodology and the British government has not seen fit to force Jones to release the code or even the station lists, it seems that pretty much no one out side the clique has. I do not have a clue what they are doing nor have I made such a claim.

    I do see that you ignored the fact that your post to rebut me with the justification for NOAA’s adjustments, which did not apply to the discussion, was meaningless in this context.

    Have you ever considered reading up on the subject so that your comments are more relevant to the discussion? I never said that the reference station methodology was flawed, I said the GISTEMP implimentation of it was. I actually think that Hansen’s RSM is very elegant way to handle multiple scribal records for the same station.

    Now I feel your pain. It must be quite plain that GISTEMP has been adjusted repeatedly for undocumented reasons. The Step 1 reference station code has been shown to add additional warming as a artifact of the programming. You cannot admit that making undocumented changes to the past to increase the warming trend is an issue, if not a problem, because that goes against your faith, not the science.


  2. Vernon said:

    I do see that you ignored the fact that your post to rebut me with the justification for NOAA’s adjustments, which did not apply to the discussion, was meaningless in this context.

    Utter rubbish. You are slandering honest scientists with the rubbish you post. Please stop it immediately. At first we just thought you were ignorant of science but your consistent posting of the same rubbish over and over again after been shown how wrong you are means that you are putting out this rubbish intentionally. You are a deplorable troll.


  3. Adam,

    Let me try again, but first i will make the assumption that you read and understood the links i provided in my previous post.

    Here is a graph that shows the five adjustments carried out on the raw data

    Add http://

    The five adjustments are

    1) The black line is the adjustment for time of observation.

    2)The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used.

    3)The yellow line is for changes in station siting.

    4)The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records.

    5)The purple line is for UHI effects.

    Here is a graph that shows the effects these adjustments have on the temp record

    Add http://

    Now lets take a look at the raw data with these adjustments

    Add http://

    Now lets take a look at the raw temp record before the adjustments are made

    Add http://

    Here is a graph which compares the two (raw and adjusted) together

    Add http://

    Now getting back to your original statement

    “Is this a serious statement?!?! Crakar, throughout all the discussions that have taken place, are you still so ignorant as to why that statement is not even wrong? That’s like saying 2 + 2 = eleventeen.”

    When looking at the above graphs it is painfully obvious that the corrections GISS make have gotten larger and larger as time has gone on. The corrections in 1934 was minimal compared to the corrections made in 2000, thus without these so called corrections most of the century warming according to GISS simply vanishes.

    Do you agree or are you going to simply respond with another mathematical absurdity?


  4. Ian,

    you sure are consistent. When in a bind, lie. I have never slandered anyone nor have I attributed motive to why GISTEMP is so poorly coded or documented. To be honest, GISTEMP would have been unacceptable in a 201 FORTRAN class in the 70’s when FORTRAN and COBAL were the main languages. But enough about that.

    I feel like following a valued contributer to this sites policy of calling a spade a spade. You really do not know that what you posted as rebuttal was meaningless in reference to the discussion. I have to admit, at first I though you were trying for humor, but then I realized that your pointing to RC for a comment on the USHCN adjustment to rebut my points about the Reference Station Methodology was because you did not know. That lead me to wonder why to you keep trolling all the posts calling people names. I looked it up on some pysch sites, sad.

    You always call people names when you cannot win the debate. You have even claimed to be a scientist, but you do not read the science nor seemingly understand it.

    Well, since your name calling is going to be a valued contribution and mine is heading for redaction, I will be ignoring all your posts until they actually address the subject being debated.


  5. Do you agree or are you going to simply respond with another mathematical absurdity?

    Jennifer’s blog is an absurdity, pure and simple. Worse that WUWT whose “blog scientists” “proved” that low antarctic temps cause CO2 snow to fall in the interior.

    And what is this “mathematical absurdity” crap? Math and stats are the bread and butter of modern science. If you don’t like that, you’re back in the stone age.


  6. Do you agree or are you going to simply respond with another mathematical absurdity?

    Of course, there’s also the picture is worth a thousand words bit.

    It’s melting

    Worse than expected.


  7. Vernon, just about every post you make slanders scientists. Your ability to understand English syntax is at an all time low if you do not even know that what you are saying is slanderous.

    I do not call people names unless they deserve it and you certainly deserve all the anger that is directed at you. You are anti-science and anti-scientist.

    You consistently use ad hominem arguments:

    GISTEMP would have been unacceptable in a 201 FORTRAN class in the 70’s when FORTRAN and COBAL were the main languages

    I don’t call people names when I “cannot win the debate”. I call them what they are as they portray themselves by their postings. Any honest contributor to this blog will see exactly what it means when I call a spade a spade.

    You have actually posted one honest statement:

    I do not have a clue what they are doing.

    This applies to all the scientists who you are slandering. Try reading some honest texts and you will not be so clueless.


  8. I do want to be sure of your position, rewriting the past is ok if it gives the result you want to see now?

    LOL! That’s nicely worded. I would put it more like this: reprocessing the data is ok if it improves the accuracy of the resulting analysis.

    If it shows that the globe is warming, well maybe, just maybe, it is.


  9. Dhogaza,

    My post was a response to Adam, not that i mind you responding but Adam did say 2+2=eleventeen which is of course a mathematical absurdity. The only connection to Jennifers blog was the graphs, i could have used the graphs from another site but of course this would not have changed the content only the source.

    As usual your post bears no relavence to mine but as Vernon has said you as is Ian are one of the valued contributors so i guess it is OK for you to ramble on about nothing.

    So far i have essentially posted the same thing twice and on both occasions the point has been completely missed.

    I seem to recall you said you were from Vancouver? I thought they spoke English there but maybe i am mistaken and some form of bastardised French is your native tongue.

    Next time you post please stay within the framework of the debate.


  10. Crakar and Vernon,

    Don’t be so insecure. This line about “valued contributors” is a rewriting of history (again). I called them “regular supporting commenters” and you guys “regular antagonistic commenters” – no value judgement.


  11. Coby,

    Thanks for the clarification, in regards to my original post which generated this hotly debated topic i called for GISS/Hansen to be called to account for their data manipulation. Both Vernon and myself have highlighted the numerous changes to the temp record via so called corrections which seems to have over inflated the temp trend over the past 120 odd years.

    If the GISS process was completely transparent and full disclosure and justification of these corrections was made for all the world to see we would not be having this debate, unfortunately this is not the case. So as long as 3 out of 4 agencies show the same trend, but a differing trend to GISS then one can only assume GISS is the incorrect one.

    As Adam and dhogaza clearly have nothing more to add to the debate should we now consider it closed?

    One question i wish to ask is of the 3 different methods we have of measuring global temps which one would you consider to be the more relavent?

    1) Sat data only
    2) Surface data only
    3) Combination of the two




  12. Coby,

    So, your position is that GISS’s constantly rewriting history is ok if it give the correct result. That a 9.2% change in the trend in four years is not significant. Would you be saying the same thing if one of the other sources could be shown to constantly rewriting history in an undocumented manner and they were lowering the warming trend by 9.2%.

    Some how I just do not think that you would find that change acceptable. It looks like a bad implimentation is ok, if it gives the results you want.


  13. Vernon @ 80:

    That is a 9.2% increase in the trend which does cause temperatures in the present to be warmer. That is why it matters.

    No Vernon, what matters is the trend, especially over the past 2 to 3 decades. Using the data you provide (where did you get your “2005” data?) I did a linear regression of your 1981 to 2004 data. If you do that you will find that the changes made between 2005 and 2009 (if we can believe your numbers) shows a very slight LOWERING of the rate of increase from 0.171C per decade (2005 data) to 0.170C per decade (2009 data).

    Hardly the “9.2% increase” you are claiming.

    Once again Vernon, you have been shown to be posting rubbish.


  14. Ian, thanks for bring that up. There are several archival sites that keep data from almost all web pages. It is odd that GISTEMP is the only major source that does not archive their own data and have change logs to explain why past data was changed.

    Now, I have to ask, why did you cherry pick those dates? Since I have repeatedly stated that GISTEMP’s adjustments are largely lowering past data, what did you hope to achieve by cherry picking that period? Why are you ignoring the changes to the full record?

    The full record from 2005 and 2009 (last week):

    2005 2009
    Year J-D J-D
    1880 -0.22 -0.25
    1881 -0.17 -0.19
    1882 -0.19 -0.22
    1883 -0.21 -0.23
    1884 -0.25 -0.3
    1885 -0.25 -0.3
    1886 -0.21 -0.25
    1887 -0.3 -0.35
    1888 -0.22 -0.26
    1889 -0.12 -0.15
    1890 -0.33 -0.37
    1891 -0.24 -0.28
    1892 -0.29 -0.32
    1893 -0.29 -0.32
    1894 -0.29 -0.33
    1895 -0.24 -0.27
    1896 -0.13 -0.17
    1897 -0.1 -0.12
    1898 -0.21 -0.24
    1899 -0.13 -0.17
    1900 -0.07 -0.1
    1901 -0.14 -0.16
    1902 -0.22 -0.27
    1903 -0.28 -0.31
    1904 -0.3 -0.34
    1905 -0.22 -0.25
    1906 -0.17 -0.2
    1907 -0.34 -0.39
    1908 -0.32 -0.34
    1909 -0.32 -0.35
    1910 -0.31 -0.33
    1911 -0.31 -0.34
    1912 -0.29 -0.34
    1913 -0.28 -0.32
    1914 -0.12 -0.15
    1915 -0.05 -0.09
    1916 -0.27 -0.31
    1917 -0.36 -0.4
    1918 -0.29 -0.32
    1919 -0.18 -0.21
    1920 -0.17 -0.19
    1921 -0.11 -0.13
    1922 -0.22 -0.24
    1923 -0.19 -0.2
    1924 -0.19 -0.21
    1925 -0.13 -0.16
    1926 0 -0.01
    1927 -0.11 -0.13
    1928 -0.09 -0.11
    1929 -0.22 -0.25
    1930 -0.04 -0.07
    1931 0 -0.01
    1932 -0.04 -0.06
    1933 -0.15 -0.17
    1934 -0.05 -0.05
    1935 -0.09 -0.1
    1936 -0.03 -0.04
    1937 0.06 0.08
    1938 0.1 0.11
    1939 0.04 0.03
    1940 0.03 0.05
    1941 0.12 0.11
    1942 0.04 0.04
    1943 0.08 0.1
    1944 0.19 0.2
    1945 0.09 0.07
    1946 -0.03 -0.04
    1947 0 0.01
    1948 -0.02 -0.04
    1949 -0.03 -0.06
    1950 -0.13 -0.15
    1951 -0.03 -0.04
    1952 0.04 0.03
    1953 0.12 0.11
    1954 -0.09 -0.1
    1955 -0.11 -0.1
    1956 -0.19 -0.17
    1957 0.06 0.08
    1958 0.11 0.08
    1959 0.07 0.06
    1960 0.01 -0.01
    1961 0.07 0.08
    1962 0.04 0.04
    1963 0.09 0.08
    1964 -0.17 -0.21
    1965 -0.1 -0.11
    1966 -0.02 -0.03
    1967 -0.02 0
    1968 -0.04 -0.04
    1969 0.08 0.08
    1970 0.02 0.03
    1971 -0.11 -0.1
    1972 0 0
    1973 0.12 0.14
    1974 -0.11 -0.08
    1975 -0.06 -0.05
    1976 -0.14 -0.16
    1977 0.11 0.13
    1978 0.02 0.01
    1979 0.1 0.08
    1980 0.16 0.18
    1981 0.22 0.26
    1982 0.06 0.05
    1983 0.25 0.26
    1984 0.07 0.09
    1985 0.03 0.05
    1986 0.12 0.12
    1987 0.27 0.26
    1988 0.3 0.31
    1989 0.19 0.19
    1990 0.37 0.38
    1991 0.32 0.35
    1992 0.14 0.12
    1993 0.14 0.14
    1994 0.24 0.23
    1995 0.37 0.38
    1996 0.25 0.29
    1997 0.4 0.39
    1998 0.56 0.56
    1999 0.33 0.32
    2000 0.32 0.33
    2001 0.47 0.48
    2002 0.54 0.56
    2003 0.52 0.55
    2004 0.48 0.48

    LSTrend 0.004848725 0.005294624
    SD 0.21048356 0.225975677
    CI 0.036898694 0.039614531

    It is easy to see that the older years have been extensively lowered between the 2005 and 2009 data sets.

    If you want to say that only the last 24 years matter, then please provide statical reason why.

    Oh and yes, 2009 trend/2005 trend is 1.091962 or 9.2%.


  15. Vernon said:

    Now, I have to ask, why did you cherry pick those dates?

    How stupid can you be? These were the latest dates you gave which had both sets of data.

    Another thing, I doubt very much if you can do a linear regression since 1880 since the trend lines are different at differing points in time. In other words there is not a linear trend from 1880 to 2004.

    Anyone who is knowledgeable about climate change knows that it is the trend over the past few decades which is important since that is the time period when CO2 effects are the dominant driver. You do understand what that means, don’t you? During the early part of your data CO2 was not a major driver and only played a minor role in warming.

    Vernon said:

    Oh and yes, 2009 trend/2005 trend is 1.091962 or 9.2%.

    Are you referring to 1880 to 2004? As I explained earlier, that is meaningless since the trend has not been linear over that time period. Also, it is the recent trend which is important since it is mostly due to increasing levels of CO2. Go and ask Tamino if you want further clarification on why you can’t do a linear regression on non-linear data.


  16. Ian,

    So basically, you have decided that a least squares trend line cannot be done for the entire series and your only going to count the part of the series that supports your point of view. You do not know statistics do you?

    Once again your in a indefensible position and it is back to the name calling.

    I guess it is too much to point out that it does matter since the only way to get exceptional warming is to lower the past temperatures, but that may be beyond you.

    There is no requirement for me to go and ask someone to defend your position. You go to Tamino if you want and see if he will post how your right. I do not possibly see how but, go for it.

    Since your back to name calling and nothing to support your position, once again I will ignore, well until you post something else that dumb to knock down.


  17. Vernon, I do not call you names. The rubbish you post speaks volumes more than I can ever take the time to write about you.

    How can you use a “linear regression” on non-linear data? The trend over the past 2 to 3 decades is what is important. Your lies about GISS altering the data to increase the trend by 9.2% is just rubbish. The change in GISS data has in fact reduced the recent (most important trend for climate scientists) by a very small amount. Get a life.

    And it will save valuable band width if you just stop posting rubbish rather than ignoring me since all of my comments about your behaviour are honest and true and can be verified by anyone who wants to waste their time by going back and checking your previous posts, on this site and the others which still allow you to post (that number gets smaller and smaller as you continue to post your lies and misinformation all over the web).


  18. Well, I see the noise ratio is going up.

    Since no one else wants to try and defend the position that a 9.2% change in four years insignificant, I guess that Coby was wrong with this thread, the adjustments that GISS makes to GISTEMP are significant.


  19. Vernon said:

    Well, I see the noise ratio is going up.

    The more you post the more noise there is. No one wants to waste their time by showing how stupid and wrong your idea that the GISS adjustments have made a 9.2% difference is. You can’t use a linear regression on non-linear data and the trend over the last 2 to 3 decades is what is important.

    Come back when you havc some thing useful and honest to say.


Comments are closed.

carmic20 on Glaciers have always grown and…
Wow on Glaciers have always grown and…
carmic20 on Glaciers have always grown and…
Wow on Glaciers have always grown and…
carmic20 on Glaciers have always grown and…