Visualizing Tom And Gavin’s Destruction Of The Temperature Record

2015-12-19-04-55-44

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The Northern Hemisphere/Arctic warmth of the 1930’s and 1940’s needed to disappear, because it wrecked the global warming scam. So Tom Karl of NOAA and Gavin Schmidt of NASA simply altered the data to make the warmth disappear. The graph below shows how they rewrote the temperature history at Reykjavik, Iceland between 2012 and 2015.

2015-12-15-05-03-15

2012 version: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
2015 version: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Here are the original Icelandic records showing the first three months of 1940 – Temperatures averaged 1.6C, 1.7C and -0.2C respectively.

2015-12-19-04-36-23

2015-12-19-04-36-472015-12-19-04-37-14

(h/t RobertV)

Veðráttan, 17. árgangur 1940, Júní – Timarit.is

Tom and Gavin needed to get rid of that warmth, so they subtracted 3.2 C from the measured temperatures for all three months.

2015-12-19-04-46-57

data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_620040300000_14_0/station.txt

Their data tampering created a 100% fraudulent hockey stick of warming – needed by Barack Obama to push his climate change scam.

2015-12-19-04-51-14

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The warmth of the 1940’s and subsequent cooling was well documented. In 1939, Glaciers from Greenland to Norway were facing “catastrophic collapse”

2015-12-14-03-46-06

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – at Newspapers.com

But by 1975, Arctic ice was rapidly expanding and blocking Icelandic seaports. Just as the unaltered temperature data showed.

2015-12-19-04-53-49

4 Mar 1975, Page 9 – at Newspapers.com

The NOAA/NASA/CRU temperature records are fraudulent – generated by political hacks posing as scientists.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil

junksciencearchive.com/FOIA/mail/1212063122.txt

Hopefully the next president will clean up this massive fraud being committed by government agencies.

2015-12-15-05-09-47

About stevengoddard

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

37 Responses to Visualizing Tom And Gavin’s Destruction Of The Temperature Record

  1. mkelly says:

    By extension they are saying to Icelandic MET folks we are smarter than you. Since there was a USnaval airstation at Keflavik during that time frame there would be records from there backing up the originals. Proper temperature is needed to ensure take off and landing parameters are met.

  2. gator69 says:

    The Icelamic State in International Science…

  3. Jason Calley says:

    Waiting for the CAGW response. Three, two, one….

    “A little error like that does not matter. After all, Iceland is only less than one percent of the earth’s surface. Besides, all you have done is show that the data was adjusted; we all agree that the data was adjusted!”

  4. cfgjd says:

    Do you have the skills and temerity to study the issue in depth and publish a peer-reviewed paper about it? Or perhaps you don’t like things being done rigorously?

    [SG : Peer review in climate science is a complete farce]

    • gator69 says:

      Do you have the skills and temerity to study the issue in depth and provide a peer-reviewed paper refuting NV? Or perhaps you don’t like things being done rigorously?

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember this from waaaay back?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

    • Latitude says:

      cf….you’re a hoot!

    • sunsettommy says:

      It is clear cfgjd,that you have no counterpoint to Steve’s presentation using Gavin and Tom’s own work which is NOT peer reviewed by the way.

      • rah says:

        Glad to see cfgjd has no answer to this post. And we can be sure he won’t seek one based on factual evidence either. Fact is, if the Team had an answer to all the evidence of tampering Tony provides, one of them would be here giving it. CFACT certainly has to be right up there in the top five of their enemies list of organizations which they would desire to discredit and destroy. And this site of theirs is the one that puts out arguments with evidence as a counter to their scam nearly every day of the year. Day after day, one post after another, Tony drives home the message of their fraud by digging up publicly available empirical evidence and presenting it in a form that even a dumb ass truck driver like me can understand and appreciate.

        • Gail Combs says:

          POSTMODERN PEER REVIEW

          Climate gate e-mail 0255

          It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike H[ulme] has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
          Thanks,
          Mike Mann

          The ClimAstrologists did indeed get Dr. De Freitas fired from the journal and tried to get him fired from his university.
          Wall Street Journal

          Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
          This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
          Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
          Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them…..

          However when the shoe is on the other foot and you are part of the ‘TEAM’ the journal editors will bend over for you.
          Climate gate e-mail

          Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. [Michael Mann]
          …When it comes out I would hope that AGU/EOS ‘publicity machine’ will shout the message from rooftops everywhere. [Phil Jones]
          …Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and your colleagues submit [Judy Jacobs, managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union

          AHHHhhhh the joys of doing peer-review! SUCH gentlemen these ClimAstrologists are.
          Climate gate e-mail 3556

          On May 22, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Keith Briffa wrote:
          please accept – the answer is that it is likely someone who might prefer you not to do it Keith
          At 18:00 20/05/2009, you wrote: Keith,
          You miserable soul! You didn’t even give me time to respond to “Manuscript Central” before you asked me to review a paper one minute later. Who is the author. Frankly, if it is someone from Beijing or Xian who hates Lamont and actively uncuts us for doing work in China, I am inclined to decline. That person can kiss my arse.
          Cheers,
          Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: drdendro
          …ABSTRACT: A tree ring-width record spanning from AD 1377 to 1998 was developed from Tibetan juniper (Cupressus gigantea) growing at sites north of the deep gorge of the Yarlung Tsangbo River of southeast Tibet. A linear regression model between ring width and mean January- June temperature accounts for 35% of January-June temperature variance for the period 1961-1998. Based on this model, we reconstructed January-June temperature variation history for southeast Tibet during the past 622 years. Warm conditions occurred during AD 1385-1418, AD 1443-1466, 1482-1501, 1523-1548, 1570s, 1705-1759, 1770-1790, 1851-1888, 1910s, and 1938-1965, and periods of relatively cold years are identified for AD 1419-1442, 1470s, 1502-1522, 1550-1569, 1610-1640, 1680-1700, 1760s, 1791-1850, 1900s, and 1965-1995. Spatial correlation between tree ring and observed temperatures indicates that the reconstruction is representative of temperature change for southeast Tibet. Regional cold conditions during around AD 1625, 1685, 1760, 1800-1850, 1890-1930 and 1965-1995, and warm conditions around 1710, 1730-1750, 1850-1890 and 1930-1960 can be identified in the eastern Tibetan Plateau.

          Seems Mann is not the only one who wants other scientists who do not agree with them fired.
          Climate gate e-mail 3646

          I responded to [Chris Landsea’s] earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on him!!!!
          Kevin [Trenberth]

          Dr Landsea gave up and left.

          This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
          Dear colleagues,
          After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
          With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

          Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
          I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
          Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
          It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy. ….

          http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

    • AndyG55 says:

      I wonder how many views this site gets in a day, in a year. ?

      Do you have that information available, SG ?

  5. Ron Clutz says:

    When you look into the the records of well-sited stations, the lack of warming is obvious, as is the effect of adjustments. My study of USHCN stations meeting the CRN#1 standard is here, with supporting Excel workbooks:

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

    • Robertv says:

      Nice job but it won’t convince the true believers the AGW brown shirts and Common Core jugend.

    • David A says:

      From Ron’s “Science Matters” blog. (Perhaps if you called it “Scientists Lives Matter”) it would get more of the attention it deserves!
      “Recently I updated that study with 2014 data and compared adjusted to unadjusted records. The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.”

  6. George Applegate says:

    If a doctor bills Medicare for more complex procedures than were actually performed, Medicare calls that fraud even if the billing is accidental. They demand the payment back and will prosecute if the fraud was systematic and intentional.

    The government needs to hold anyone paid by the government, as employees or grand funded, equally accountable. First they demand that the salary/grant funds be returned, and if the fraud is systematic, prosecute. The precedent has been set.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Heck the newest twist is the IRS walks in and just seise your bank account.

      No muss, no fuss, no due process or criminal charges! They do not have to do anything but talk to a judge and get a siezure warrant.
      Civil Asset Confiscation: The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Can Now Seize Bank Accounts On Suspicion Alone

      ….

      The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

      Her money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

      Critics say this incentive has led to the creation of a law enforcement dragnet, with more than 100 multiagency task forces combing through bank reports, looking for bank accounts to seize.

      Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up.

      “They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. “They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”….

      Only one in five was prosecuted as a criminal structuring case.

      The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going.

      The $10,000 loophole line in the sand…

      Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports. Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

      There is nothing illegal about depositing less than $10,000 cash unless it is done specifically to evade the reporting requirement. But often a mere bank statement is enough for investigators to obtain a seizure warrant. In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years…..

      It is a real catch 22 because if you do NOT put your money in a bank and keep a loty of cash around then the cops can grab the money and run with it under Civil Assest Forfieture.

      • Robertv says:

        You don’t need ISIS to destroy western society. Nobody can do as much harm to a country and its people as an out of control government.

      • Robertv says:

        All forms of direct taxation gives the State the right to know everything about you. You now are a number and numbers don’t have rights.

        This https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf tells you you are a slave.

        great name they gave it ‘ U.S. Individual Income Tax Return ‘ so it sounds good like ‘Patriot Act’ .

        • Gail Combs says:

          Taxes have been shifted FROM corporations TO individuals. Not that it matters since the corporations will just pass the tax on to the consumer.

          In the 1980s I figured out the actual overt taxes I paid. It was 64.5% of my income. This does not include the 51 taxes on a slice of bread or the banks lending fiat currency printed on the spot and getting your labor in return.

          I figure most middle class people pay 80 to 90% in tax if they could add it all up. The price on most goods are at least 50% tax. (If you rent you STILL pay property tax not your landlord.)

          As RAH how much his rig pays in taxes. ALL of it is passed on to the consumer.

  7. jccarlton says:

    Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    The Temp doesn’t fit the narrative? the temp must be wrong!! It needs to be “adjusted.”

  8. Konitohtor says:

    On the site below is an another example, how temperature history is manipulated by GISS.
    http://konitohtor.blogspot.fi/p/blog-page_17.html

  9. cfgjd says:

    Glaciers in Iceland are losing ice…must be the alleged but unproven tampering again.

    • gator69 says:

      Glaciers in Iceland have been losing ice for 10,000 years…must be your ignorance showing again.

      Care to share the peer review work you claimed? I mean someone needs to follow your reviews, and correct all the obvious errors. It would be our pleasure I’m sure.

    • rah says:

      Gee, a volcanic island that sits on an active hot spot known as the “Icelandic Plume” and is split pretty much down the middle by the diverging boundaries of two tectonic plates has some glaciers melting? Say it ain’t so!!!!!!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh.. look , just as predicted by the AMO

      http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/nature_and_travel/2015/08/17/iceland_s_glaciers_to_grow_in_2015/

      http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/icelandic-glaciers-expand-first-time-over-20-years

      http://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2015/06/30/icelands-glaciers-expand-after-decades-of-retreat/

      And from other parts of the world..

      Again we see the COLD patch around 1979.

      It seems that cfool is on the wrong side of TRUTH yet again. Ignorant twit that he is

      • AndyG55 says:

        try that link again

      • AndyG55 says:

        And some more

        “One of the best known Icelandic surging glaciers is Brúarjökull, a major outlet glacier in the north-eastern part of the Vatnajökull system. It had major surges in 1810, 1890 and 1963-64. During the 1890 surge, the ice margin advanced about 10 km over a period of few months (Figure 14). Subsequent to the surge, the ice front became largely stagnant and the glacier retreated until it surged again in 1963-1964. Brúarjökull stands as a textbook example of glacial landsystems created by surging glaciers (Evans and Rea, 2005), and has in recent years been extensively studied for the purpose of understanding causal links and effects of glacial surges (http://www.hi.is/~oi/bruarjokull_project.htm).”

        Notice the periodicity of the surges. 60-80 years.

        Just about due.. and the AMO has just reversed, and the scientists in Iceland say it looks like the glaciers will start to expand this year.

    • Latitude says:

      ok, show of hands….

      who really gives a flying crap about glaciers in Iceland
      🙂

      • gator69 says:

        The only glaciers I ever gave a crap about were those that I skied upon, and those that left breathtaking scenery after melting. I really appreciate those deceased glaciers most of all.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I only care if they start accumulating major amounts of ice.

        Why ever anyone is worried about melting, when it is a mile of ice sitting on top of Chicago or Scotland that is the real climate problem, escapes me.

        • Latitude says:

          amen

        • Gail Combs says:

          This vegetation map of the Wisconsin Ice Age says it all:

          Not many places that are not desert, semi-desert or covered in ice! You can see why Putin thinks CAGW is crap. Cold is the bigger threat and the colder it gets the worse the drought in northern Asia will become.

          Putin was born in October 1952 so he would have lived through and been aware of the late 1960s early 1970s grain crisis. ( He joined the KGB in 1975. His dissertation was in economics, titled “The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations”)

          1974 CIA report:
          “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

          … Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

          Not to mention the 1980s grain crisis On January 4, 1980 President Carter cancelled contracts for the sale of 17 million metric tons mmt) of U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans to the Soviet Union. link

          We well fed people of the industrial west have little knowledge of Food as a Weapon or its importance to the stability of third and second world nations.

  10. Michael Newhouse says:

    Is this not scientific fraud and most inimical to rational decisions by governments and the IPCC! This weakens the “global warming argument yet again and joins the demise of the Mann hockey stick, the Wessex U environmental distortions and failure to release questionable data to critics and the lack of significant temperature increase for almost 20 years despite a rise in atmospheric CO2 of 15% suggesting little caus-effect relationship!
    Remember its about the real world truths and not the unsupported computer models!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s