Massive Tampering By GISS
By Paul Homewood
I showed last week how the NOAA global temperature dataset has been altered in recent years, always with the same result of cooling the past and increasing recent warming.
It will come as little surprise, therefore, to find that the same thing has happened with GISS. It is a common misconception that GISS and NOAA are independent sets, but in fact they both use exactly the same GHCN and ERSST data, and the only basic difference lies in the way they process the data.
We have the GISS data that was published in May 2008, which has been archived by Climate4you. (I also have hard copy from the Met Office from April 2005, which shows similar results). Comparing this with the latest version, we can see what effect changes since 2008 have made to the GISS dataset:
Figure 1
We can see that, relative to the warm 1930’s and 40’s, recent temperatures have been adjusted up by about 0.2C.
This may not seem a lot, but, as Figure 2 shows, since the 1930’s temperatures have increased by about 0.6C, so the adjustments account for about a third.
Figure 2
Just as significantly is the fact that the same adjustments have changed the ranking of recent years, as Figure 3 illustrates.
Figure 3
We find that, even within the last year, adjustments have progressively increased temperature anomalies since 1998. For instance, while the anomaly for 1998 has been increased by 0.02C, it has risen by 0.07C for 2014.
The effect can be seen in the rankings below.
| Ranking | 2014 Version | Current Version |
| 1 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 2 | 2010 | 2010 |
| 3 | 2005 | 2005 |
| 4 | 2007 | 2007 |
| 5 | 1998 | 2013 (Tie 2007) |
| 6 | 2002 | 2009 |
| 7 | 2013 | 2006 |
| 8 | 2003 | 1998 |
| 9 | 2006 (Tie 2003) | 2002 (Tie 1998) |
| 10 | 2009 (Tie 2003) | 2012 (Tie 1998) |
At the end of 2014, 1998 was ranked as the 5th warmest year, but the latest set of adjustments has now demoted it to tie 8th.
Even that does not tell the whole story. Note that in the 2014 version, 1998 tied with 2002. However, when we check back to GISS’s own Annual Report for 2002, we find that in fact 1998 was warmer than 2002. (The 2005 summary I have shows that 1998 was warmer by 0.02C, but the GISS chart suggests even more.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2002/
GISS have spent years gradually adjusting historical records in order to increase the warming trend. The changes made are never properly archived, and because they use anomalies it is difficult to quantify what they have been doing.
Is it any wonder that GISS is now diverging from the more accurate satellite data?
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the GISS version of the truth cannot be trusted, given the huge amounts of government funding sent their way. It is now time to defund the whole operation, and return to uncorrupted science.
If this was a commercial business continually massaging its historical results so as to improve current performance, not only would heads roll, but some would find themselves in a cell.
It is a sign of the times that government funded academia is not made to follow the same rules.
Sources
1) Current GISS data here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
2) May 2008 version
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/20080517%20GLB_Ts+dSST.txt
3) Other archived GISS data from WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/24/impact-of-pause-buster-adjustment-on-giss-monthly-data/
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
When you’ve spent decades trumpeting a particular forecast and it doesnt happen, you have to do something to save your professional reputation. In this case I think its clear that the deliberate changing of historical temperature data to fit the predictions of AGW from the 1980’s onwards.
I think its human nature at play here – self preservation rather than real science.
A common complaint of the straight comparison between temperature datasets is that they are on different baselines. This graph puts GISS and RSS on the same baseline: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2015/offset:-0.35/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2015/offset:-0.35/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/offset:-0.1/trend
They still diverge, but the scale is different.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
An example of the extent of GISS’s temperature ‘adjustments’ is shown below. Temp data for De BILT (Holland).
GISS ‘raw’ temp
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1
GISS adjusted temp
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600000&dt=1&ds=14
And these adjustments have been applied to many other stations.
They are going to need to go at the “adjustments™” even harder over the next decade or so if the solar scientists are correct.
Paul, this is only the latest futile attempt to by tyrants to hide “NEUTRON REPULSION: The force used in creation, destruction, preservation and redemption.”
CHAOS and FEAR of events during a NEWS blackout in Aug-Sept 1945 transformed science into a propaganda tool of world tyrants:
Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf
Frightened world leaders secretly agreed to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms on October 24, 1945.
While standing in Hiroshima’s ruins in August 1945, Kuroda had already realized that the same source of energy in the core of the Sun made our elements and sustains our lives, NEUTRON REPULSION:
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
Thanks to Max Planck’s 1944 speech in Florence, Italy on the nature of matter, we now have absolute assurance humanity will survive this seventy-year (1945-2015) effort to take totalitarian control of the globe by combining sovereign nations into one United Nation.
Click to access Assurance.pdf
This is humanity’s assurance Big Brother is going down !
Reblogged this on eliquidassets.
Paul, from what I can see it looks like GISS is still adjusting to make the temperature record fit the CO2 records, and by this method provides a better approximation to the modeled atmospheric temperatures.
If you plot CO2 against the temperature record then this will be plain to see, and may even give you some predictive power as to where/what will be adjusted next.
I recall that Steve Goddard did this some time ago (2 years ago?) and found it makes an almost straight line for the adjusted temperature record against CO2 levels.
Thus the meme of CO2 causing temperature rise is only being maintained through these adjustments. No doubt this year will still be one of the warmist on record according to GISS.
This is of course required as ‘evidence’ so that the UN elitists gain more control of fossil fuels before global cooling gets too obvious — keep the sheeple distracted until the fuel coup is completed.
After Paris the ‘new world order’ will make it so.
Reblogged this on kingbum78's Blog and commented:
When people figure out the sun is not a constant and it does run the show it will be harder to manipulate temperature data sets…lower solar activity does not equal higher temperatures ever
This is the type of posting that gets traction! Keep it up and save the original data.
Looks about the same idea as LIBOR, but they will not be fined for their misdemeanours.
Booker would probably call these people, “lying barstewards”, certainly not scientists.
This fiddling with raw data is a disgrace. Often raw data are adjusted to compensate for known sources of error but the adjustments then are by scientific formulae and can be checked and questioned, not by computer algorithms that change all the time.
I strongly suspect that the “Science & Environment” team at the BBC read this website along with others in similarly sceptical vein. It would be a disgrace if they don’t, given that they’re supposed to be journalists, and they create alarmist headlines and stories out of multiple green pressure group press releases which rarely say anything new, merely regurgitating the same old, same old.
So, if Mr Harrabin and his friends do read this article, then I challenge them here and now to run a (non-biased) story about it, ideally with a shrieking alarming headline about the corruption of the figures on which global warming beliefs have been wrongly based.
I don’t suppose it will happen, though…
They do read this and other blogs like it. The sometimes, when they feel that the public might be drifting offside, post articles to bring them back onside. Complaints to the BBC will provoke similar responses about TOBS and other pseudo-scientific Mumbai jumbo
Ben Vorlich
It appears you’re spot on. After going quiet for a while, Harrabin is back with another story to ramp it up, same old same old: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33724781 under the headline “AA joins protest at government’s green changes”. It even includes a quote from Richard Kirkman of that nice disinterested company Veolia – might have been a bit more honest to have the Veolia comments from Gummer, since he’s more than a little interested in it, and is completely conflicted in his role as Chairman of the Parliamentary Climate Change Committee. Not that you’ll hear anything of that from the BBC…
It is just about possible to accept that the raw data from the 30’s could be biased and might need an adjustment to bring it closer to reality. I have yet to hear any reasonable excuse from GISS why they feel it necessary to make adjustments to raw data post 2000. The only thing that could be moving current readings from reality is UHI, which would require the opposite adjustment to what is being applied.
I have an alternative hypothesis as to why the 1930s raw data – the peak of the early 20th century warming – was adjusted downwards. It is due to there being less temperature stations compared to the post war period. As temperature trends vary at local and regional levels, pair-wise homogenisation techniques will cancel out different local variations to a greater extent where readings are more thinly spread. This hypothesis is testable.
Also testable is the element of assuming that the most recent data is correct, and adjusting backwards. If temperature trends are temporally different, then trends common decades ago may appear uncommon to an algorithm that has made the untrue assumption that current trends are in line.
Good to hear from you again Manic, and an interesting link that Paul might like to give some attention to,
Somehow, I put this on the wrong tread… anyway…
If you want to see massive data tampering…… go to
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=7
turn on all three data sets.
Remember.. these all come from different measurement systems. 😉
Seriously..??????
Engineers and mathematician out there will have to have a laugh. !! 🙂
Or cry, when they realize the US National Academy of Sciences still reviews the budgets of federal research agencies for Congress, although . . .
The US National Academy of Sciences and the UK’s Royal Society obviously betrayed their own countries and joined Stalin’s campaign to “save the world from nuclear annihilation” after formerly sovereign nations and national academies of science (NAS) were united into a worldwide “Orwellian Mininsty of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” on October 24, 1945.
There is no other viable explanation for abruptly and falsely changing:
1. The internal composition of the Sun from
_ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
_ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946 and
2. The definition of nuclear stability in textbooks from
_ c.) Lowest value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII to
_ d.) Highest value of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy per nucleon after WWII.
Both changes are falsehoods designed to hide the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms and stars: NEUTRON REPULSION
The AGW debate is important because less than ~500 years ago the Scientific Revolution:
1. Started with Copernicus 1543 discovery of a giant fountain of energy in the Sun at the solar system’s gravitational center.
2. Was nearly aborted by the trial of Galileo ~100 years later.
3. Flourished for ~300 years as the concept of human’s right to self-governance spread.
4. Was effectively aborted when nations were united on 24 Oct 1945.
5. Received a second chance in late Nov 2009 with the release of Climategate emails.
6. Hangs in the balance today, although AGW promoters lost the debate but still retained full government support.
This is becoming ridiculous.
We must have 200-300 decent sites going back say 150 years which cover a reasonable part of the globe (land surfaces).
How many of these – before tampering – show the temperature changes that the Alarmists claim for the globe? How many show that current temperatures, and rates of change are unusual?
If all these alterations are necessary, I have to assume that the answer is very few.
It’s long-since morphed into the greatest scientific con of all time. We know, they know and they know we know.
Keep up the great work, Paul. You and Tony Heller have been excellent at unearthing what amounts to blatant data fraud. History will be kind to you.
They’ve got themselves in a hole
And they need to stop digging,
The data recordings
They need to stop rigging,
A return to honest science
Is urgently needed,
But are they too radicalised
For that call to be heeded?
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/climate-denying-the-witchcraft/
‘Climate science’ is on the make,
Corrupted data is obviously fake,
Wallets need filling so they’re all on the take,
There’s important careers and honours at stake!
The beauty of this is that if the cooling trend continues they’re just digging themselves in deeper and deeper. And if AGW explodes, it could be like the rock tossed in the pond, causing ripples to spread outward to other areas. (For instance, how will the Guardian ever live this down? This might even wake up some of their bien pensant readership.)
Hi.
Keep it up.
Link I stumbled on