Fiddling With Temperature Data

Obviously, Warmists will attack the messengers, rather than wonder “hey, um, why exactly are the data sets messed with?”

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

As Christopher Booker goes on to note, Paul Homewood is looking into the Arctic, and finding lots of issues with the official data. In another post he notes information by Dave Burton which shows that adjustments have artificially increased land surface temperatures by 34.87% between 1900-2014, and

Dave Burton has taken the Cowton graph from the video, and added the narrative in green as above. Using specialised digital analysis techniques, Dave has calculated that adjustments have increased temperature trends for global land surfaces from 0.7527C/C to 1.01551C. In other words, about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.

Yes, global warming has occurred. This is the nature of the Holocene, and surely what has occurred throughout the lifespan of the Earth. Mini cooling and warming periods, which can last a couple hundred years to half a millennium or longer. Warmists want to blame this all on CO2 from Mankind, and state that warm period is somehow different from all the others, yet, a) they feel a need to change/adjust/modify/make up the data, and b) refuse to give up their own big CO2 lifestyles.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Fiddling With Temperature Data”

  1. Zachriel says:

    Raw temperature data was originally gathered for local weather forecasting, and has obvious discontinuities and anomalies. This is due to changes in instrumentation, personnel, station site, local development, etc. Pointing to temperature adjustments doesn’t mean anything without understanding how and why those adjustments were made, a process that has been subject to extensive study.

    The first studies spliced the data manually. Since then, statistical techniques are used to splice the data. But we can actually determine the trend without reference to splicing by treating each snippet of data as independent. All of these techniques show the same positive trend.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Ergo, global warming is caused by computers.

  3. TrishMac says:

    This Fiddling as you so kindly put it, to make us believe that there is something drastic afoot, and that there is something we can do about it. Well if the end result is that we get taxed and regulated back to the dark ages, surely then this is perfectly acceptable to warmists.

    Warming cooling, changing. It will always be fluctuating, it’s the nature of climate to do that. The science is in- weather changes globally.

    • John says:

      Trish the US Navy believes in AGW
      The Pope believes in AGW
      Virtually the government if every country accepts AGW as a fact
      Your paranoia over taxes and regulation is beyond paranoia
      The fossil fuel industry has complained about every new regulation imposed on them I remember when they whined about having to reduce the lead in gasoline
      Regulation of industry protects the population
      Coal burning is definitely being phased out
      Renewable energy cost is always going down

  4. John says:

    Teach why do you think global warming is occurring ?
    You always say it is natural ( I guess as opposed yo supernatural) but exactly what are the causes?
    The medieval warming was thought to be caused by orbit changes

  5. How many times must I answer that question till you remember the answer, John?

  6. Trish the US Navy believes in AGW
    The Pope believes in AGW
    Virtually the government if every country accepts AGW as a fact

    And every time Animal Planet runs the mermaids program, huge amounts of morons state they believe in mermaids. What’s your point, John? Belief is not the same as fact.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Please read and understand Zachriel’s critique above.

    Are you changing your previous position that the Earth is warming, but by unidentified “natural” causes, to “The Earth is not warming”. You’re gonna get whiplash.

    Skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer pioneered the collection of satellite data, and their system, UAH, shows 0.14 C warming since 1979. Gistemp, Hadcrut, Berkeley and NOAA surface measurements all show 0.14-0.16 C warming over the same period. The RSS satellite data shows 0.12 C warming since 1979.

    In your desperation to satisfy your ideology, you’re ignoring the evidence, and regressing back to Denier status.

  8. JGlanton says:

    NOBODY disagrees that it has warmed since 1979, otherwise known as the end of the 30 year cold cycle.

    When you start your time period in the 1930’s, however, there has been no warming. Unless you work at GISS and NHCDC, in which case your job is to knock off a degree from back then, add a half degree to recent times, and turn it into one continuous rise. Of course they’ve been doing this gradually in 1/10th degree increments since 1999, so nobody will notice the big change that they have caused with their data tampering.

    The strange thing is that this has been going on so long, and is so widespread, but it hasn’t gotten any real publicity until this week. I guess the right person has to say it. The examples that they have are a relatively small set: this fraud is perpetuated on the entire surface temperature set. And now that 50% of their surface temps are no longer taken from real measurements, but are just fabricated interpolated data, they are applying fabrications to their fabrications.

    They have the big balls of pirates. I’ll give them that.

  9. The Neon Madman says:

    If your data needs “adjustments”, it’s not valid data.

  10. jl says:

    And to top it all off, the one thing they should adjust for, they don’t. The UHI, or urban heat island effect. They use urban heat readings in place of the rural ones they don’t have. Which of course is what you do when the science and the funding is on your side. Sarc

  11. Jeffery says:

    the one thing they should adjust for, they don’t. The UHI, or urban heat island effect. They use urban heat readings in place of the rural ones they don’t have.

    Do you have evidence for this? It should be easy to find if it’s available. This would be an easy thing for skeptics to sort out.

    Didn’t former skeptic Dr. Richard Muller (UC Berkeley) conduct an extensive study of this? He supported McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s critique of Mann’s “hockey stick”, writing in 2004, “the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics”, and founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, to investigate “siting” of the surface temperature stations.

    After thorough reanalysis of all the available data and an examination of Mann’s methodology, Muller wrote in 2011,

    “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”

    You guys are re-running 10 year old complaints that were put to rest by scientists on your own side! And you wonder why everyone mocks you.

    The Earth is warming. The Earth is warming from CO2 we’ve added (and continue to add) to the atmosphere.

    The question is what, if anything, to do about it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6242 access attempts in the last 7 days.