Skip to content

Five Years Of GISS Cheating

December 17, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

I looked at the latest batch of GISS temperature adjustments the other day. As I mentioned, in themselves they are relatively insignificant. But cumulatively, they do add up.

We can see this by comparing the 2011 version of global land temperatures with the current version.

 

 

First, this is what GISS published in Nov 2011. It is not available on their website, but I managed to track it down anyway:

 

image

image

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v2/GLB.Ts.txt

 

I have not shown the full list, but you get the idea.

Now, let’s compare with the current version:

 

image

image

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

 

If we look at the last full year of the 2011 version, i.e. 2010, the annual temperature anomaly has risen from 0.83C to 0.91C, an increase of 0.08C.

And if we go back to 1941, we find that the anomaly has dropped from 0.11C to 0.01C.

Cooling the past and warming the present! Now where have we heard that before?

In terms of the amount of warming since 1941, these adjustments to the historical record just since 2011 have added 0.18C to the trend.

We know that other, similar adjustments have been made to GISS LOTI numbers prior to 2011, but we don’t know the split between land and ocean. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine cannot help us, and GISS themselves don’t archive any of this information.

 

The full extent of changes going back to 1881 can be seen below:

 

image

 

 

I guess that is what they mean by man made warming!

Advertisements
35 Comments
  1. December 17, 2016 12:11 pm

    This adjustment looks to be about half of the total global warming, so it is correct to claim that half the warming is man made.

    • December 17, 2016 12:41 pm

      Can’t be half of the total AGW . The math won’t allow it. In fact the warming from AGW should be much higher. Not unless you are refuting the theory outright or changing the calculations, which I will need to see for the half.

      • December 17, 2016 2:44 pm

        What “theory”. The “theory” is now all to pot because it’s blown out the water by the pause. I’m not sure if anyone still has a coherent statement on what they believe is happening that even vaguely matches what’s been happening let alone an actual theory.

  2. December 17, 2016 12:12 pm

    GISS publishes the data, homogenisation is courtesy of GHCN, not GISS. GISS make adjustments for UHI, lowering some of the GHCN data somewhat. Don’t blame the messenger.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 17, 2016 12:23 pm

      Good point, Tony, but if GISS own the data and later stand behind it after GHCN have (cough) ‘corrected’ it, don’t they have to take some responsibility for it? I don’t hear of them (GISS) disowning the released data.

      • December 17, 2016 7:09 pm

        No, GHCN “own” the data. GISS publishes it. Raw data is available too.

    • December 17, 2016 7:31 pm

      As a matter of interest, I downloaded raw and homogenised data for, amongst other sites, Darwin last month. GISS has updated with November data, so I downloaded the homogenised series for Darwin again. All the monthly, seasonal and annual date before 2015 have been increased by two tenths of a degree.

    • December 17, 2016 7:44 pm

      Not necessarily true Tony

      Although the data comes from GHCN, GISS do all sorts of things with it to arrive at their global figure.

      As GHCN do not publish a “global temperature” series, we cannot tell who is responsible for which bit.

      But since GISS actually publish the end results, I am afraid the buck stops with them.

  3. December 17, 2016 12:15 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ‘Cooling the past and warming the present’ to fit the “global warming” narrative doesn’t get much more clear than that! Wow.

    Time to drain the climate change swamp, before trust in “the science” is damaged irreparably.

  4. Dung permalink
    December 17, 2016 12:47 pm

    People keep referring to “the science” as if it contains all the answers and you just need to look.
    In reality the science does not yet exist that even partially explains how our climate works. Always turning to the science in this kind of situation means never getting the right answer.
    But wait! Politicians need answers right now and they are insisting that scientists give them answers, so what should they do?
    Oh! I forgot, they don’t do truth.

    • December 17, 2016 1:30 pm

      ” the numbers add up ” that’s exactly right. That’s why the ” science ” has to adjust the numbers ? They’ve cooled the past and warmed the present. And just by shear coincidence they’ve had to start adjusting the co2 record as well. Seems like the yearly up and down movement of co2 followed the up and down movements of temperature a little too well.

    • December 17, 2016 2:48 pm

      “Science” here is being used as in “the views of the group of people and organisations who credit themselves as being ‘scientists'”.

      So, it’s really a circular ‘argument’. They are “scientists” because they do “science” and it is “science” because they are “scientists” – despite most of what we seeing being no more scientific than economics

  5. December 17, 2016 1:04 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten.

  6. TinyCO2 permalink
    December 17, 2016 1:05 pm

    Trump’s team will have a hard time knowing where to start untangling the mess.The first task might be to insist that publicly funded data be published in full. Apart from anything it would counter that bit of misinformation about them ‘backing up the data to protect it from Trump’. I hear shredders not backup drives.

    • December 18, 2016 1:01 pm

      Immediately, so-called “scientists” who have proven themselves to be of low character should be shown the door. Then those true scientists who hold tenaciously to truth should be ushered into those positions. NSF and AAAS need to be purged. The word needs to go out: “Tell the truth or be out of a job.”

  7. Colin permalink
    December 17, 2016 1:59 pm

    Interesting to go on Wiki and see what the trends are for all time US state temperatures. There are 50 all time highs and 50 lows. On average the highs are recorded 2 years later than the lows in a 130 year record which is hardly indicative of devasting warming. Of course these extremes are out there in the historical record and not even GISS can homogenise them. You can argue about the paucity of data, nevertheless AGWers usually take a record high temperature as evidence of warming. A dataset containing 100 points surely spread over half a continent surely carries more weight than for instance England’s warmest July day recorded last year.
    Moreover the States that recorded extreme lows more recently than highs tend to be in the north which again tends to contradict AGW theory which states that warming will be greatest in the polar regions.
    My own feeling is that we have too much data, and the easy availibility of computer allows for automated processing or homogenisation of the data without human oversight. The only checks are whether the data backs up the preconceived of its keepers.
    The GISS record is a “product” manufactured from hundreds of individual ok stations and it’s hard to see how any organisation can get a proper handle on this data. If someone could find ten pristine well maintained stations across the US I would trust the combined average from these more than the GISS product.

  8. John Plummer permalink
    December 17, 2016 2:36 pm

    If GISS analyzed the old data and discovered that temperatures in the past should have been shown to be warmer thereby making the present relatively cooler,… would they have published that data? Just askin’.

  9. Greg Wheeler permalink
    December 17, 2016 3:04 pm

    Are we surprised that our government is lying to us? Remember, “if you like your plan you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and the average family of four will save $2,500.00 per year”?

  10. NeilC permalink
    December 17, 2016 4:42 pm

    It is said that the AGW theory is based o fundamental science, CO2 warming the air in a glas jar in a lab.

    In the real world they have never considered this fundamental law of physics; as temperatures in the atmosphere increase naturally – recovery from the LIA, the atmosphere naturally expands, hence more CO2 and more water vapour molecules.

    The natural increase in temperature therfore naturally increases CO2, not the other way round.

    Or am I mistaken?

    • December 17, 2016 5:44 pm

      Neil, that’s what the evidence seems to indicate. There has been a slight warming of 0.3 or 0.4 C and co2 has followed over the last 60 years. I don’t know if anthropogenic co2 has contributed anything to the amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

  11. Reasonable Skeptic permalink
    December 17, 2016 8:00 pm

    With Trump in power, people are going to be allowed to ask questions pertinent to this kind of problem.

    All that has to happen is get the best homogenization process possible using an open and thorough process that is properly documented and has input from wide sources. Heck, even if there were multiple homogenization processes that would be employed at least we could get a decent reading on global temps.

    The way it is going now, we may have already reached 2.0 deg C, but that won’t happen until they have made all the adjustments to be made in 2030.

  12. Tom Dowter permalink
    December 17, 2016 10:00 pm

    At one time, GISS made their own adjustments to the raw data, (which includes SCAR as well as GHCN stations). In those days, there were substantial differences between GHCN, USHCN and GISS for many individual station’s “corrected” data.

    More recently, GHCN have adopted the USHCN methodology and GISS have started to use the GHCN “corrected” data as their starting point.

    Changes between one version and another in the GISS datsets will, in part, be a result of this. Another possible reason for changes is that GISS add in some extra stations once their records are long enough.

    The real trouble though, is that the “corrections” rely on the observation that nearby stations behave similarly to each other. In the inter-annual variability they do, but their trends, (which is what interests most clima\te scientists), don’t agree nearly so well.

    This makes the overall temperature series somewhat “iffy”.

  13. December 17, 2016 10:36 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  14. Mark Hodgson permalink
    December 18, 2016 9:30 am

    “…GISS themselves don’t archive any of this information.”

    Meanwhile, over at the BBC website they’re trying to give the impression that climate data is at risk from Trump and sceptics:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38324045

    “Canadian “guerrilla” archivists will be assisting a rushed effort to preserve US government climate data.
    Environmentalists, climate scientists and academics are collaborating to protect what they view as fragile digital federal records and research.
    They want the data saved before Donald Trump takes office.”

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 18, 2016 12:33 pm

      I thought they spent most of their time trying to hide or delete data in case somebody like Steve McIntyre used it to prove them wrong.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      December 18, 2016 1:26 pm

      Look at the language used there: ‘guerrilla’, ‘preserve’, ‘protect’ and of course ‘fragile’. THEY’RE the f*cking crooks, not Trump. I’ve come to despise the BBC.

    • December 18, 2016 2:36 pm

      That’s funny. Guerilla archivists. I don’t suppose they will have any more luck with the doctored data from an official source than I did. As if it means anything. Could I be considered a skeptic Guerilla archivist everytime I record the information from NOAA and 3 months later NOAA changes the temperature and co2 amounts per year ?
      For 10 years the co2 record for ppm in 2005 stood at 2.52 which no year was above 1998 until last year, 2015. Then NOAA changed that to 3.10 for 2005 AFTER it was brought to their attention that co2 followed temperature. (They changed others, 2005 was a glaring example)

      Sure, the records they are saving are pure and pristine. Who’s to say they are doctoring them as they save them ?

      Before NOAA started changing the numbers ppm per year followed the temperature anomolies up and down despite constant and increased co2 production. Co2 also, has /had an inverse relationship with solar activity. ( peak to peak levels of co2 ppm per year) And co2 also followed cosmic ray activity.
      What does that mean ? Nothing. ” where did you get those numbers , that’s not what we have? ” is what I was asked.

      If that stood up with the data that I had, and in my mind it still does, the only thing I can say is that there has been an underlying warming trend of about 0.3 C and co2 has followed suit. Then there is the missing anthropogenic co2 that’s missing or unaccounted for. So if you are thinking that the rise is solely from anthropogenic sources, that’s in doubt. So it bears watching if temperature falls this year, which it looks like it has, will the co2 ppm level be less ? Unless they ‘fix’ it, it will be. (Temperature alledegedly has fallen 0.5 C in the last 6 months). So I’m curious whether man made warming is just that, man made warming with the records.

  15. December 18, 2016 11:01 am

    We’re told that ‘More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.’

    http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

    In which case GISS atmospheric temperature numbers are of limited importance anyway?

    • Joe Public permalink
      December 18, 2016 11:20 am

      Is that warming as in ‘measured temperature increasing’; or, warming as in ‘missing, unaccountable heat from theory’?

    • NeilC permalink
      December 18, 2016 1:46 pm

      Or are the oceans supposed heat increases due to changes in ship measurements (bucket to engine intake), or the change to Argo bouys or just the tiny amount of time we have been “accurately” cough cough, measuring sea temperatures out of millions of years?

      More likely stitching apples and oranges together, a bit like the HS or maybe the heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean.

      Or just the natural processe of recovery from the LIA and ocean conveyor belts transitions and strong el Ninos

  16. CheshireRed permalink
    December 18, 2016 1:23 pm

    This is Obama’s doing. Would be interesting if Gavin found himself looking down the wrong end of an extended period of ahem, ‘leisure’, what his reaction would be. I expect such a prospect would sharpen his focus a little. Impeachment, anyone?

  17. tom0mason permalink
    December 18, 2016 7:25 pm

    As the cold covers 48 states and winter low temperature records are being broken all over the place, people must be reminded that 2016 is officially (according to NASA) the hottest year ever! And remind them that somehow global warming causes snow but no-one can properly explain it. Somehow burning fuel moves the jet-stream, etc, etc.

    Add the line “NASA says 2016 — hottest year ever”, to greeting cards, and emails.

    This winter is a gift! Use it!

  18. John Peter permalink
    December 19, 2016 9:28 am

    As far as I can ascertain there is only one way that global temperature records can be verified in so far as this is possible and a qualified team will be required.
    Go back and collect all original temperature recordings unadjusted.
    Compare these with the current “adjusted” actual temperatures.
    Decide which recording stations can be used based on spread, length of recordings, and general reliability criteria.
    Review all the “homogenisation” methods employed to arrive at the current temperatures.
    Match these against scientifically acceptable criteria and determine any differences.
    Introduce realistic uncertainty bands +/-
    Publish these results after reviews as land only, ocean only and land/ocean combined.
    That would be an interesting exercise. That would also put satellite recordings in perspective.
    Whatever they do it will create controversy, but at least we will see if it is true that the adjustments have introduced a warming bias from past to present.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      December 19, 2016 11:20 am

      fully agree that a proper assessment of the history and adjustments is needed: the outcome looks pretty clear from all of Paul’s analyses of the fiddles. It is strange that allegedly inaccurate data can be processed to give accurate data that support an inaccurate model of the world’s climate. The model uses a basic forcing function (RFF) to drive the climate which is fiddled / agreed by a committee of “scientists” who should know better.

    • December 19, 2016 12:35 pm

      The IPCC did just that, collected all of the original data. Adjusted it, which nobody can verify, and threw the originals away. An attempt to retrieve them from a landfill in Denmark was made. But the records were too far degraded. The IPCC admitted that the data had been adjusted. There were others who had information from those records that differed, but not the originals. . However, as things go, people don’t know or forget. Would you have known about this if I didn’t tell you ? I can tell you what the response from the CAGW will be, silence, if you were someone of standing in the climate field. They already know the records don’t exist. They also know they’ve been adjusted. They also know they keep adjusting them. And you or I have the authority to do what ?
      Most fraudulent science with a political purpose.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: