Skip to content

Mann-Made Warming At GISS

July 31, 2015

By Paul Homewood 

  

The chart below eloquently illustrates the effect that GISS tampering has had on temperatures in the last five years.

 

It starts by showing the annual temperature anomalies for 1998 and 2010, as they were reported at the end of 2010, i.e. 0.56C and 0.63C respectively. Progressively as each year has gone by since then, the anomalies for 1998 and 2010 have been subtly increased, until currently they are shown as 0.63C and 0.71C.

 

image

Anomalies as published by GISS at the end of 2010 through 2014, and at June 2015

 

The anomalies are set against a baseline of 1951-80, which means that the increases either mean that the historical temperatures for 1951-80 have been reduced or recent ones increased.

 

Remember this when people deny that the net effect of adjustments always seems to go in the same direction.

 

 

 

NOTES

Below are the screenshots for each year.

 

ScreenHunter_2497 Jul. 31 10.50

ScreenHunter_2498 Jul. 31 10.50

ScreenHunter_2499 Jul. 31 10.51

ScreenHunter_2500 Jul. 31 10.52

ScreenHunter_2501 Jul. 31 10.52

ScreenHunter_2502 Jul. 31 10.53

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/24/impact-of-pause-buster-adjustment-on-giss-monthly-data/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Advertisements
23 Comments
  1. Mark Hodgson permalink
    July 31, 2015 10:36 am

    As ever, please keep up the good work, Paul.

    I’m still waiting for Harrabin’s story on this at the BBC…

    As someone else commented on an earlier thread, while it’s possible to accept (subject to detailed and justifiable explanation) that temperatures recorded in the 1930s and 1940s might have to be reduced due to issues with the accuracy of the recording then, it’s difficult to see that such an explanation can apply to temperatures recorded much more recently, Indeed, if anything, the Urban Heat Island Effect would surely mean that any adjustments to recently recorded temperatures should be downwards, not upwards.

    • July 31, 2015 1:11 pm

      Unless they were to alter or replace existing rural temp readings deemed to be suspect with new ones more in line with the nearest ‘reliable’ reading – which might just be from an ‘urban heat island’.

      Who would do such a thing…

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      July 31, 2015 3:33 pm

      Why would you have to adjust the past (1951-80) annually? Conversely if 21st century measurements are so poor they require annual adjustments why are we taking any notice of them?

      These guys make Sepp Blatter look like an icon of virtue, honesty and straight talking.

      • August 1, 2015 9:09 am

        Sepp Blatter must be wondering how these bunch of charlatans can escape press scrutiny, particularly the BBC, who are their cheerleaders.

  2. July 31, 2015 10:43 am

    At this rate we will have “homogenised anomaly” warming of 1.25 deg K per century, while the real temperature stays still or even falls. This is quite a significant contribution to the predicted global warming: but they will have to increase it further to excite Paris.

    This does demonstrate that the homogenisation is non-scientific, as scientific corrections are not be revised once properly formed unless the science alters, which is not common.

    It is the unaccountable providing numbers to the believers to keep them happy.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      July 31, 2015 10:54 am

      “but they will have to increase it further to excite Paris.”

      Just move the decimal point, 1.25 deg K – 12.5 deg K, no one will notice.

  3. July 31, 2015 11:50 am

    Paul, the work you do is extremely important. I presume your website and posts are being safely archived. To preserve work I’ve been doing I submitted my websites to the internet archive. This has proved to be very helpful as deleting of important data was subsequently done by other parties.

  4. A C Osborn permalink
    July 31, 2015 12:01 pm

    Paul, as we know the values for 1998 are much lower than they were in 1998/89.

  5. Scott permalink
    July 31, 2015 12:22 pm

    Beyond me. How can you have a temperature reading for 2015 in the year 2010?

    • Hivemind permalink
      July 31, 2015 1:10 pm

      The 2015 figure is as reported in 2015, for 1998/2010. Ie, how much history as been change each year.

    • July 31, 2015 5:50 pm

      It’s the other way round!

      It is what they are currently showing as the temp for 2010, compared to what they showed for 2010 last year, in 2013 etc

  6. July 31, 2015 1:06 pm

    Amazing to see the Paris Offensive in the adjustment surge in 2015.

  7. July 31, 2015 1:11 pm

    As I say, if we have not known over the past 10-15 years what the temperature has been over the past 10-15 years, how can we claim to know what the temperature was 100-150 years ago?

  8. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    July 31, 2015 5:59 pm

    Could you find out how the 1951-1980 baseline has changed?
    The claim of warmest year based on anomaly, could also be the coldest reference period.
    As far as i know, they calculate the reference each time they do a new anomaly compilation.

    • July 31, 2015 6:06 pm

      Yes, this is the problem, as they keep changing historic temperatures. We don’t know whether it is the baseline that changes or current.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        July 31, 2015 7:19 pm

        Therein lies the answer as to why anomalies are beloved by CliSci.

      • Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
        July 31, 2015 11:08 pm

        The problem is, i think, that they make references (baselines) for each station, so does anyone at all know the global baseline?
        And furthermore, is that happening before or after the pasteurisation/homogenisation, or is it mixed up so that no one has any clue.
        I just wonder why it is so hard for third parts to replicate the process to tell that it is ok or not.

  9. Gary H permalink
    July 31, 2015 9:38 pm

    A few days back, I picked up the LAT’s and glanced at the weather page. The record high in Los Angeles, for July 25, was 109 – back in 1891.

    LA was not a large metropolis at that time. I doubt that we had paved streets yet.

    The urban heat island effect comes to mind, as there would not have been much of any of that back in 1891. However, now there sure as heck is.

    So, in the discussion of temperature adjustments – should it not work like this. The effect can amount for additional temperature in the range of 5-8 F (off the top of my head). Therefore, in order to beat that old record in today’s environment would not the recorded temperature, in the same location need to be adjusted – “upwards?”

    Would not Los Angeles have to reach a temperature of between 113 and 117 F, in order to tie the standing record high?

    Is NASA (GISS) adjusting temperatures in the wrong direction? At least in urban settings, should not the temperatures be adjusted upwards, relative to the amount of urban heat island effect should have been present at different times (more in the past – less in the present) as populations have grown and cities expanded their hard dark surface area as well as heat generating improvements (more cars, air conditioners, etc)?

  10. August 1, 2015 1:36 am

    O/T but Paul this was on the BBC weather report earlier

    They also showed this

    Not sure where the 1°C was recorded (Bruce over at xmetman has Sennybridge in mid-Wales as 0.9°C but lowest in England was Exeter at 2°C).

    Also Idso did a write up on UHI

    http://www.cato.org/blog/progressive-increase-urban-heat-islands-influence-temperature-records

  11. August 1, 2015 11:43 am

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.

  12. August 2, 2015 3:28 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    GISS publishes a temperature dataset and calls it good. Then the next year, they publish the same dataset with alterations and call it good. They repeat these alterations with progressively warmer temperatures.

    Why should we believe anything they publish when they just change it the next year?

    GISS has lost all credibility.

  13. August 2, 2015 3:53 pm

    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    There is no limit on lies the most powerful humans tell to avoid admitting Copernicus discovered an even more powerful fountain of energy at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543:

    1. Five hundred years ago the Pope, the most powerful human on Earth – tried
    2. Now, world tyrants with publicly-funded, 97%-consensus “scientists” also try

    to hide the powerful pulsar at the core of the Sun that

    3. Made our chemical elements
    4. Birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago
    5. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Ga ago, and
    6. Still controls every atom, life and planet in the entire solar system today

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

Trackbacks

  1. Mann-Made Warming At GISS | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: