Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (876462)	7/29/2015 10:39:33 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576704

The problem is predictions. The quality of models is determined by the accuracy of predictions over time. And they just aren't. They haven't been. And there is no reason to think they will be in the future given their histories. When they start getting it right, let me know.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (876462)

7/30/2015 10:54:38 AM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576704

Massive Tampering By GISS

July 29, 2015

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We have the GISS data that was published in May 2008, which has been archived by Climate4you.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 [ Orders from the White House ] , 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?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2015/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend

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/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/massive-tampering-by-giss/

Paul permalink
July 29, 2015 8:34 pm
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.

tom0mason permalink

July 30, 2015 12:33 am
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.

...........