The adjustments to GISSTemp now add about 2deg C to the 'warming' trend. Without the adjustments, the surface temperature records agree much more closely with the satellite measurements...which show little or no correlation with CO2 levels.
Only in climate science is a hypothesis supported by this much conflicting data considered to be 'unequivocal', or the data supporting it claimed to be 'overwhelming'.
If there is one thing this whole 'debate' has shown, it is that there is no limit to the power of confirmation bias in the mind of the leftist.
Well, if we assume that the claim is correct, then the question would be why were the adjustments necessary. I would be surprised if they didn't have a good reason.
Most of the adjustments seem very small, less than 1/20 C; that's not enough to significantly alter the bigger picture.
If they really were trying to distort things in favour of AGW, why would they increase the pre 1890 data?
Also, instead of increasing them, why didn't they reduce the values for the El Nino dominated 1998?
I agree; it doesn't look good when presented this way, but I'll need a lot more than that before I change my view.
I tend to avoid using the GISS data these days for any 'trend' analysis as I know that it now has an implicit warming trend included in it. "Darwinist" sees these changes as necessary improvements, but I'm afraid I can't be quite so generous. The changes made are calculated and cynical. They warm up the cold extremes in the record, and cool the hot spots. In particular the cold spell prior to WW1 was warmed in the record, and the hot spell around 1940 was cooled.
I stopped using the GISS for any trend analysis after I tested the consequence of dropping the huge number of stations that they did in the mid 1990's. What they dropped was predominently rural stations. This put a huge positive trend into the data due to UHI. Years later they addressed the UHI issue and guess what? the trend remained!
Having said all that, it doesn't really make that much difference. The four contemporary data sets I use; HadCRU, RSS, UAH, GISS all show the same movements up and down at the same times, and they all show the same long term trends. They are slightly different in their absolutes, but they all agree in general.
The fact that GISS is a little hotter than the others really doesn't matter much. It is good to have 4 independantly derived estimates, using 2 entirely different methods, that appear in fairly good agreement. It reassures us that in general terms we are in the right ball park.
What difference does +- a few of hundreths of a degree in an estimate really make?... after all, what exactly does "Global average mean temperature" actually represent?.
The best thing about GISS data is how easy it is to get to.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/statio...
The constant changes made to the Surface Station network to estimate earths global temperature are insane to use as a metric to evaluate the climate. The surface of this planet is only 30% land the sparse nature of temperature stations make the GISS not valid as a global metric in any discussions about the climate of the last 30 years. The Satellite data is a true global dataset that spans almost 35 years and appears to be pretty accurate and also tells us that whatever caused the warming is not CO2 related. So what did they do, they get the even more sparse and even more corrupted radiosonde record and adjust it to support their case that there is an energy imbalance in the climate (Malice). I think the GISS adjustments and its exclusive use as evidence in government policy decisions about CO2 and any regulation of it in our lives are possibly fraudulent and certainly negligent.
They changed the 1930s to cooler . I guess the jet stream never went far south and
the dust bowl were figments of peoples imaginations along with the heat .
They are rewriting history to suit the chicken little agenda .
Stalin should be proud.
PBS did shows on the Dust bowl last year . Those years were hotter than now ..
It's all based on very complex algorithms that adjust raw temperature data which is obviously wrong.
It is just pure chance that in 97% of the adjustments past temperatures are cooled and more recent temperatures are warmed.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10975
My guess is that most alarmists don't even care how corrupted the GISS temps are, they just want their quack theory be right and even blatant cheating won't phase them.
