GISS maturity graph from 2008-2015

[IanC]

keep in mind that this is only the change since May 2008. there were plenty of previous changes, especially around 2000. much of the change seen here from 1930-50 is to attenuate the inconvenient previous rise in temps that could not be explained by CO2.

here is a more detailed graph for two specific months, on in the past and one recent.

that is roughly a quarter of a degree C added to the trend in 7 years. over three degrees C if extrapolated out to a century. of course we do not know if the changes in the coming years will be greater or smaller. but judging from the feverish adjustments being done lately it is hard to believe it will not continue to exacerbate the increasing trend.

 

[Billy_Bob]

IT is rather stunning to show the step changes in the record. A full 1.3 degree F or 0.69 degree C upward adjustments.. and they scream 'nothing to see here'... And yet they have really weak reasoning to make these adjustments as Dr Curry has pointed out on her blog. I am siding with Judith on this one, It being confirmation bias and pushing the need to change the data to fit their agenda and failed models..

 

[Billy_Bob]

They are trying like hell to keep the natural cycle hidden. It will do them no good as its about to kick them right in the teeth. You can actually see the bias at the end of the graph where the cycle is obviously interrupted.

ETA: This is a graph of their changes. in the first part of the graph there appears to be a fairly even distribution except for some areas. When the distribution falls all one way there is massive bias being applied. This is not natural correction. it is purposeful and it is extreme at the end of the graph. This has the effect of removing natural cyclical cycles.

 

[IanC]

you know, Billy Bob, your insane and inane comments make it harder for reasonable posters such as myself to make lucid points.

there was no 'full 0.69C upwards adjustment'. at least not in the data I presented.

the difference between the two selected years, 1910 and 2000, was 0.45C in May2008 and 0.69C in aug2015. 0.69 minus 0.45 equals 0.24C.

adding 0.24C to the trend in seven years is equivalent to adding over 3.0C per century. of course we dont know if adjustments will continue at this pace. I think it is suspiciously convenient that GISS added the equivalent of 3C/century during 'The Pause' when AGW alarmists are predicting a 3C temperature increase for this century.

looking at the maturity graph, it looks like 2001-2005 was adjusted up 0.05C, and 2006-2010 was adjusted up 0.10C. what should we think when 2014 was declared the 'warmest evah' by 0.04C?

 

[Crick]

When Karl found there'd been no pause

 

[IanC]

When Karl found there'd been no pause

that's funny!

they used up some of a dwindling supply of public trust to make an obvious play at adjusting the temps just to scratch that terrible itch known as the 'Pause'. hahahaha. I bet even a lot of the strong AGW supporting climate scientists are wincing at that 'own goal'. pretty blatant ploy.

it would have been much smarter to wait for a big El Nino to come along and temporarily bust the Pause, and then make the adjustments so it would not come back with the next La Nina. too late now.


I wonder how much of the public sees it as desparate to make feeble adjustments to 'remove' the Pause when all the other temperature datasets still show it? mind you, they are probably scrambling to find their own methodology change to boost temps and kill the Pause in their own products. Like when BEST came on line.

 

[Billy_Bob]

you know, Billy Bob, your insane and inane comments make it harder for reasonable posters such as myself to make lucid points.

there was no 'full 0.69C upwards adjustment'. at least not in the data I presented.

the difference between the two selected years, 1910 and 2000, was 0.45C in May2008 and 0.69C in aug2015. 0.69 minus 0.45 equals 0.24C.

adding 0.24C to the trend in seven years is equivalent to adding over 3.0C per century. of course we dont know if adjustments will continue at this pace. I think it is suspiciously convenient that GISS added the equivalent of 3C/century during 'The Pause' when AGW alarmists are predicting a 3C temperature increase for this century.

looking at the maturity graph, it looks like 2001-2005 was adjusted up 0.05C, and 2006-2010 was adjusted up 0.10C. what should we think when 2014 was declared the 'warmest evah' by 0.04C?

Why do they adjust out natural variation? When they lower one area of the record and raise another the difference is the insane adjustment of the record which makes it useless in science. Adding 3 deg C/Century is what their models low end predict. their adjustments will have to continue in order to keep them from being shown frauds.

What is going to happen to these idiots when we drop 2 deg C over the next 30 years due to the low solar output and next to zero level solar cycles? Will they double their adjustments? This is mot going to end well.

What is insane are the adjustments they simply can not justify.

ETA: The approximate sign wave I overlayed on that graph is the solar cycle with the exception of the end of the graph where they have totally obliterated the output fall. They wiped out natural variation caused by the sun. What they are doing is not science!!

 

[Crick]

So... you believe CO2 and methane and deforestation do nothing to increase temperatures? You reject the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[flacaltenn]

And again -- you've got to conclude that the 1950 thru 1960s had the PERFECT raw data for temperature..
No resultant net corrections. Yeah -- that's believable...

If true -- our ability to accurately measure surface temperature has gone to shits since the 60s....

 

[Billy_Bob]

So... you believe CO2 and methane and deforestation do nothing to increase temperatures? You reject the Greenhouse Effect?

regional affects, yes... globally? nope... The lack of warming now for almost 19 years shows the "green house CO2 driven effect" nothing but a disproven theroy. Water vapor is not acting as a positive forcing. It is acting like a negative one.

 

[Crick]

I'm curious how these processes could cause regional but not global affects. Please explain.

There has NOT been a lack of warming. The ocean has consistently warmed, and at an accelerated pace, for the entire period, and now we have data showing surface warming hasn't slowed either. Water vapor is a GHG and acts as one. If you have data showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The oceans ate the Warming = LOLZ

it's 12F Warmer today than yesterday at the same time. At this rate by Christmas we'll be as hot as the surface of Venus

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm curious how these processes could cause regional but not global affects. Please explain.

There has NOT been a lack of warming. The ocean has consistently warmed, and at an accelerated pace, for the entire period, and now we have data showing surface warming hasn't slowed either. Water vapor is a GHG and acts as one. If you have data showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.

What a fool...

You really are totally ignorant of how negative forcings work. and as for your "the oceans ate my warming" crap, the record is to short and with such wide margins of error that NOTHING can be proven or disproven right now.. No scientist with ethics will make any kind of wild ass guess with so little verifiable information.

 

[IanC]

This thread is about the adjustments being made to GISS.

Flac seems to be the only one addressing the issue. I don't think that the lack of large changes in the 60's and 70's means that the readings were more reliable. It seems more obvious that that is simply the pivot point between warming the recent and cooling the past, both of which increase the trend. And which also carries the added bonus of saying some adjustments are up, some down, for a small net total adjustment if you ignore when the adjustments are being made.

 

[mamooth]

I think the issue is you need to identify your sources. We don't know what data they're drawing from, or exactly what they tried to calculate.

For example, the top graph labels itself "2008 to 2015" yet shows data going back to 1880. That does not inspire confidence in the competence of whoever made it.

And do the graphs include the oceans? These things matter. Well, to people interested in the truth, they do.

 

[IanC]

I think the issue is you need to identify your sources. We don't know what data they're drawing from, or exactly what they tried to calculate.

For example, the top graph labels itself "2008 to 2015" yet shows data going back to 1880. That does not inspire confidence in the competence of whoever made it.

And do the graphs include the oceans? These things matter. Well, to people interested in the truth, they do.

A maturity graph presents the changes made from one particular version of the dataset to the last one used. In this case from the 2008 version to the latest available. The next graphic presented all the changes for two specific months, giving the individual amounts and when it was done.

Does that clear things up for you?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think the issue is you need to identify your sources. We don't know what data they're drawing from, or exactly what they tried to calculate.

For example, the top graph labels itself "2008 to 2015" yet shows data going back to 1880. That does not inspire confidence in the competence of whoever made it.

And do the graphs include the oceans? These things matter. Well, to people interested in the truth, they do.

Another lost soul.. The CORRECTIONS

This thread is about the adjustments being made to GISS.

Flac seems to be the only one addressing the issue. I don't think that the lack of large changes in the 60's and 70's means that the readings were more reliable. It seems more obvious that that is simply the pivot point between warming the recent and cooling the past, both of which increase the trend. And which also carries the added bonus of saying some adjustments are up, some down, for a small net total adjustment if you ignore when the adjustments are being made.

You'd could make that conclusion. Many have. But you'd have to a rock-hiding, tin-hat wearing, kool-aid drinking denier.. What was it that the PhD from MIT recently said?? That the RESULTS of the corrections are improbable?

I'll go with that. If that's their Global estimate -- the data for the last 10 years must REALLY SUCK to be needing that much "adjustment".. I suggest we crash the satellites, burn the network and replicate the far superior network that existed in the 60s.. Those readings are PERFECT !!!!! There's enough Global Warming money to do that.. Then we can fire a room full of "expert judgement" analysis at GISS...

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think the issue is you need to identify your sources. We don't know what data they're drawing from, or exactly what they tried to calculate.

For example, the top graph labels itself "2008 to 2015" yet shows data going back to 1880. That does not inspire confidence in the competence of whoever made it.

And do the graphs include the oceans? These things matter. Well, to people interested in the truth, they do.

Another lost soul.. The CORRECTIONS

This thread is about the adjustments being made to GISS.

Flac seems to be the only one addressing the issue. I don't think that the lack of large changes in the 60's and 70's means that the readings were more reliable. It seems more obvious that that is simply the pivot point between warming the recent and cooling the past, both of which increase the trend. And which also carries the added bonus of saying some adjustments are up, some down, for a small net total adjustment if you ignore when the adjustments are being made.

You'd could make that conclusion. Many have. But you'd have to a rock-hiding, tin-hat wearing, kool-aid drinking denier.. What was it that the PhD from MIT recently said?? That the RESULTS of the corrections are improbable?

I'll go with that. If that's their Global estimate -- the data for the last 10 years must REALLY SUCK to be needing that much "adjustment".. I suggest we crash the satellites, burn the network and replicate the far superior network that existed in the 60s.. Those readings are PERFECT !!!!! There's enough Global Warming money to do that.. Then we can fire a room full of "expert judgement" analysis at GISS...

That really sums the whole thing up nicely doesn't it. While you might be able to justify, giving the benefit of the doubt to some, the corrections individually, the net result is massive bias. It many not even be intentional, I really doubt this conclusion however, but minor biases made hundreds of times make for huge biases.

 

[mamooth]

Does that clear things up for you?

No. You didn't give the source of the graph. You didn't show exactly what data was used in the graph.

So, it's still a mystery graph from a mystery blog, making it unsuitable for any conclusions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does that clear things up for you?

No. You didn't give the source of the graph. You didn't show exactly what data was used in the graph.

So, it's still a mystery graph from a mystery blog, making it unsuitable for any conclusions.

Why don't you supply us with a Church approved list of the 2000 era GISS corrections. They are changing EVERY DAY.. So I'm sure you are on top of this.

Just read an article yesterday about the 2014 July data for the US. Seems like to set that propaganda straight, they LOWERED the July 1938 reading by almost a degree. About 3 months later --- it was REINSTATED at the original value. Coincidentally --- that monkey biz coincided with an announcement that according to the Wizards of GIZZ -- July 2014 was the hottest ON RECORD (in the USA).. Of course -- that status was later (quietly) revoked..

Go fetch -- SURELY someone is doing monitoring and quality checks on the GISS Biz on your side. RIGHT???
Who might that be???? Maybe Cook/Nutti are watching that for ya....

See -- there's no Inspector General in the govt overlooking the books that GISS is cooking daily.