By Paul Homewood
In 2007, the US temperature trend, according to GISS, was this:
On 5-year means, the recent peak from 1998-2002 was just a tad higher than the 1930’s peak (1930-34).
Now let’s fast forward to the latest version, and we see that 1998-2002 peak is now considerably higher than it was shown as in 2007.
View original post 279 more words
Thank you for staying “on top” of this unfolding story of the conversion of science into a tool of propaganda – Orwell’s worse nightmare !
The really incriminating element of this on-going nonsense is their flat-out refusal to show (or even acknowledge) the existence of year to year data adjustments for the same data sets. If there was any serious respect for transparency they’d show the raw data and explain why current final datasets now differ from what used to be previously settled datasets. They do neither because they’re intentionally covering up their adjustments. They know they are, Steve / Tony knows they are, and we know they are.
Perhaps one day they’ll get a chance to explain themselves in an open courtroom.
Agreed. If GISS would only have left the past alone, rather than constantly fiddling with it, then we might not be as readily clued in to their malfeasance. The US taxpayers have already paid for all the data, and all the salaries of these cheats and liars and crooks. All the data and all the code should be made publicly available. I sincerely hope that GISS, NOAA, NCDC and others will one day be called to account for their actions.
Data and observations have been adjusted, manipulated or ignored since the end of WWII to prohibit public knowledge of the energy that destroyed Hiroshima – Neutron Repulsion
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
Humanity has thus been denied for ninety-three years the great promise in the last paragraph of Aston’s 1922 Nobel Lecture: “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction.”
Adjustments also include wrong way values
From the Climategate emails # – 2328
date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:07:25 +010 ???
from: “Parker, David”
subject: RE: Tom’s thoughts on urban errors …
Everybody wants to add an estimate of what UHI bias might be into their error bars, but it seems to me that rather than trust folk lore that there is a uhi bias, they first need to find one systematically in the network. Until they do that, the former is just hand waving to appease the know-littles. Jim Hansen adjusts his urban stations (based on night-lights) to nearby rural stations, but if I recall correctly (I’ll send that paper shortly), he warms the trend in 42 percent of the urban stations indicating that nearly half have an urban cold bias. Yet error analyzers want to add a one sided extra error bar for uhi…..
Bold in the original.
What they say.
Climate Etc. – Understanding adjustments to temperature data
by Zeke Hausfather All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location.
What He measured
Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement. One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ ” For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.” Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.
Or just put in any number you like.
Monthly temperatures which are marked with an “E” are “estimated” rather than measured. More than half of the current data for 2015 is fake.
And of course forget your own reporting.
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index = 16.92°C.
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature = 0.69°C above 13.9°C = 14.59°C
Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
Yes I saw Zeke’s response about MMTS and like you I already knew about the story on No trick Zone.
Zeke’s study of course does NOT directly compare side by side Thermometers as the Scientist at no tricks does, but Zeke’s work is good enough for Government and Climate Change work.
I also saw the 1997 comparison, show it to any warmist and they wriggle out of it with comments like “it must be a baseline issue” and walk away.
What is even more telling is that the 1980 Summary says it was even warmer than 1997.
Sorry, I think that should be the 1998 summary.
Yes, 1998 was the hottest of the hot years with the biggest el Nino since the 1950s.
And they lie about all this by calling the last three years ‘hottest years EVAH’ when they aren’t even the hottest of the last 20 years.
The science is settled!!
(It is only the data that we are still busy falsifying…)
The past continues to change, often .01 degree at a time. I am curious if Tony has looked at this.
And here is proof that it is still happening, changing the deep past, no reason given, it just keeps happening.01 degrees at a time, month after month, as this Bill Illis comment demonstrates…
“Here are the changes made to GISS temperatures on just one day this February. Yellow is the new temperature assumption and strikeout is the previous number. Almost every single monthly temperature record from 1880 to 1950 was adjusted down by 0.01C.
I mean every freaking month is history suddenly got 0.01C colder. What the heck changed that made the records in 1880 0.01C colder.”
Bill continues….”GISS’ data comes from the NCDC so the NCDC carried out the same adjustments. They have been doing this every month since about 1999. So 16 years times 12 months/year times -0.01C of adjustments each month equals -1.92C of fake adjustments.
Lots of opportunity to create a fake warming signal. In fact, by now it is clear that 1880 was so cold that all of the crops failed and all of the animals froze and all of the human race starved to death or froze to death and we went extinct. 135 years ago today”
To verify for yourself what Bill posted, go here….http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/can-adjustments-right-a-wrong/#comment-1877500