Exposed! By a blogger. Top work, Encyclopedia Brown, you've busted yet another conspiracy!

Steve Goddard is such a loon that even Anthony Watts won't let him publish on WUWT any more. But, of course, you uncritically accept every word he utter because, after all, you're a SCEPTIC!

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:


- and here was I thinking that Anthony Watts was a layperson. Silly me.

This is extreme man-made global warming in action in New Zealand.

This is what the thermometers recorded from 1850 – 2000.



Here another version of those thermometers after adjustments.

This is what man-made global warming looks like.



The entire NZ record was based on adjustments described in an  annex in James Salinger’s 1981 thesis. When the skeptics asked for information on the adjustments they became very difficult to find. After years of searching, NIWA finally admitted the statistical calculations were entirely lost. [See “New Zealand – Unaffected by Global Warming”]

Faced with such an inexplicable, hard-to-believe record, the logical next step was to get justice. (If only that were easy). Read on for a brief summary of the High Court action and the latest news.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/dont-mention-the-peer-review-new-zealands-niwa-...

For historical reference to GISS temp manipulation - hansen



Then within 2 years, 1934 and 1998 were virtualy the same




Then there is the Arctic temps

Changes in the relationship of the 1930s to recent values have not merely been made in the United States. In the Arctic, there has also been a progressive change in the relationship of temperatures in the 1930s to recent temperatures, a point previously discussed at CA here . Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 showed very warm 1930s in the Arctic, as shown in the excerpted figure showing the 64-90N temperature history.



Excerpt from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987, showing 64-90N temperature. The horizontal plot is from 1880 to 1985 (as seen in the full Figure 7 of the original article shown here )

The graphic below compares the most recent version of the same graph (plotted from online data at GISS), marking two bold points for 1937 and 1938 obtained from the printed information in Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 (which prints out the data now shown online). For both 1937 and 1938, the GISS estimates have been reduced by approximately 0.4 deg C. Despite recent warming, 2005 was the first year in which 64-90N values exceeded the former 1938 value – see dotted line – (indeed, 2003 was the first year that exceeded the “adjusted” 1938 value). While there are undoubtedly “good” reasons for these adjustments (and I am not here arguing the point one way or the other), the net effect of the adjustments has been to consistently lower temperatures in the 1930s relative to more recent values. Whether these adjustments prove justified or not, modifications to the temperature record of this magnitude surely warrant the most careful scrutiny before turning the “lights out upstairs.”



64-90N from Hansen 64-90N zone downloaded today. Thick – 5 year running mean (often used by Hansen). Points are selected values from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987. Dotted line compares 1938 value from Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 to other values

http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/

a full writeup can be found here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-re...

Can you refer us to any peer reviewed papers, progs.

At the moment all you are doing is regurgitating noise from discredited sources. If there was substance to any of these claims why arent we seeing papers published on this problem. Can you point me to the soure of Goddard's data? Has he used the same technique to analyse data outside of Oklahoma. How about you use your skeptical powers on Goddard?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

As opposed to the still current pal-review process.

Blog Memo to James Hansen Regarding GISS Southern Hemisphere Land Surface Temperature Data

James, you should look into this matter. I don’t have the time or the inclination to carry this investigation any further.

Some persons might think GISS has been manipulating data to acquire a higher land surface temperature anomaly trend in recent years.  They also might assume GISS has been reducing coverage in recent years to create a little more variability, thereby increasing the chances for new record temperatures with each El Niño. And the way that all suppliers of temperature data appear to use data for a grid one year but not the next, and then have data for that grid reappear a year or two later,  may lead some persons to think data is being cherry picked for use. We wouldn’t want people to think those things.

Final note: As you know, GISS, in effect, deletes sea surface temperature data in areas of seasonal sea ice and replaces it with much-more-variable land surface temperature data. This, of course, creates a warming bias at the poles in the GISS data. Refer to the zonal-mean graph in Figure 11 that compares the linear trends of the Reynolds OI.v2 data and the version of it with the GISS modifications, for the period of January 1982 to October 2011. It’s from my most recent post that discusses this subject: The Impact of GISS Replacing Sea Surface Temperature Data With Land Surface Temperature Data.

Because of that monumental bias, when I present GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data, I usually limit the latitudes to exclude polar data. Now, with this find in your land surface temperature data, I’ve had to switch to an average of the GHCN and CRUTEM3 data for that chapter of Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit, El Niño-Southern Oscillation.Sorry to say, but with all of the biases toward warming, your GISS LOTI data, in my eyes, is becoming more and more unsuitable for research.


much more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/blog-memo-to-james-hansen-regarding-giss-s...