Ottawa Mike's comments are interesting. Either it was a typing error at the time, or since July 2012 further modelling of data has been undertaken and therefore values have been adjusted. Without being able to look at their database in July 2012 it is impossible to know what the value was then (that is, was an typing error?)
As commented all data is manipulated, the point of publishing your work is that it can be critiqued and people counter-argue your model with other models ... that is science.
No fraud or corruption of the peer review process is evident. As can be seen from comments on here, most concern themselves with models only.
Nobody uses data that is not filtered or manipulated in some way. As I've explained on here before, even "raw" data has been filtered, and you're asking for trouble if you use it blindly. There is an entire sub-field of climate science called "data assimilation." If data were fed into numerical weather prediction programs without being "manipulated" , then the output would be worthless. There's an old saying regarding computers "Garbage In, Garbage Out", but it's actually much more difficult than that, because data that is accurate (and consequently NOT garbage), may not be representative, and if too much non-representative data is ingested into a computer, the output may still be garbage.
Scientists spend a lot of time worrying about these things. People that cry "Fraud!" just because they don't understand the motivation that went into choosing particular data sites, etc., should take classes in objective analysis and data assimilation first, then come back if they still think fraud is being committed.
August 2012: NOAA states that for July 1936, the 48 contiguous states average monthly temperature is 77.4°F and was the previous record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2012/7
Today: NOAA states that for July 1936, the 48 contiguous states average monthly temperature is 76.41°F and is now 3rd warmest.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip...
So sometime in the past 5 months, NOAA adjusted July 1936 downwards by 1°F. I can't call that fraud but I can certainly call it data manipulation. I wonder what July 1936 is going to next year? I wonder what other temperatures 70-80 years ago were also manipulated downwards?
Do you think this manipulation has anything to do with NOAA being able to claim that 2012 was the hottest US year ever? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2012/13 Everybody loves a heat record, right?
If the manipulation was done on purpose to be able to claim a record warm US year, then that would be fraud. And frankly, a rational person would see this as being quite a remarkable coincidence in timing.
_______________________________________...
Edit@Big Gryph: I have links to back up my numbers. Go ahead and check them out and prove me wrong.
_______________________________________...
Edit@mintie-b: "Either it was a typing error at the time, or since July 2012 further modelling of data has been undertaken and therefore values have been adjusted. Without being able to look at their database in July 2012 it is impossible to know what the value was then (that is, was an typing error?)"
No, it is not a typo. Plenty of people save databases like the one at NOAA. Even NOAA may have the old version somewhere on an FTP site. And this has nothing to do with models. It is straight adjustments to data. I have no idea how many adjustments have been made but you can bet it's always been to adjust the past down. And like I said, in the past few months July 1936 was dropped a full degree. It still doesn't change stories like this: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx/events/heatw...
You can compare that to the records for July 2012 at the bottom of this page for the number of cities, the number of records and the highest temperatures: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=07_08_201...
In the pal reviewed field of climatology?
It took Steve McIntyre, a skeptic, to discover problems with GISS's adjustment algorithm.
"My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of "fixing" bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and USHCN) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined."
It makes it tough to analyze data when they make it so tough to obtain.
I'm sure all the upwards adjustments that happen are perfectly legitimate though...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres...
...and if not "Hey, we made a mistake. Thank you so much for pointing that out to us (gritting teeth and thinking ...'You friggin denier, I hate your guts.')"
Al Gore
So let me get this straight. You want a peer reviewed paper discussing corrupt peer review process. I guess you expect bank robbers to turn themselves in as well. Good luck on your search. You apparently aren't interested in learning facts. If you were, you could read the Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford. He provides a detailed account of the various hockey sticks, how they were formulated, what they depended on and how they were broken. He also discussed the peer review process in the climate field. Their peer review, which you hold above reproach, didn't do much. They didn't check the data, they didn't confirm the formulas, they didn't check the math, they didn't do damned thing that I could see. It took McIntyre to show the really blatant flaws.
Manipulated data
Calculation of temperature anomaly from current temperature and thirty year reference avererage.
Currection for urban heat island effect.
Display of global temperature data on a single graph rather than one graph for each weather station.
1500km extrapolation in GISS dataset.
Fraud
No evidence of fraud.
Ian
Steve McIntyre's review of GISS Data is discussed in this link.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hot...
A warning about Ian's link. My browsers says, "Only secure data is displayed."
Jim Z
The Hockey Stick has been confirmed in a number of studies.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
Everything that the IPCC , Nasa , Jim Hansen, Phil Jones , Micheal Mann is all fraud .
All data was cooked till burnt than cooked some more
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
We hear constantly that climate science is based on scientific fraud and manipulated data - in view of the tens/hundreds of thousands of published papers that form the scientific consensus, can anyone refer us to, say , 5 published papers based on :
- fraud
- manipulated data
- corrupt peer review process
Well almost every denier question and post, especially many of the regulars and nuisance newbie DA deniers
