At http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-t… … the title explains the contents of the blog report which is now a widely known problem, first aired at Tony Heller's blog some time ago, and climate scientists need to explain themselves in a clearly understandable manner (instead of shreiking blue murder). Dr Friedrich Ewert looked at the data behind the global warming claim after it was reported by the media that 2014, and now we can add 2015, were the warmest years ever – yet the spring and summers were fairly cool in western Europe. He homed in on datasets from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute) as these were readily available – but most of his attention was directed at the difference between 2010 and 2012. He didn't explore earlier changes to the datasets -which have been going on for years, but he did look at data from earlier periods. Climate scientists had their reasons for getting rid of the 1930s warm decade as it was warmer than the 1990s, the nujmber one point of all CAGW alarm (as a result of a big El Nino which are in fact natural events rather than abnormalities) but this recent manipulation of the data is something different – and the suspicion is that it was done at the request of the administration (but is that a conspiracy theory? One would not like to say.
Ewert painstakingly tabulated reams of archived data from some 1153 weather stations going back to 1881 (those that are publicly available as many weather stations have been taken out of the system for various reasons, some of them for producing data apposite to warming trends – so it is alleged). The datasets as they are currently formulated show a significant warming after the 1950s, which would include the 1960s which was a colder than average decade. That in itself should ring alarm bells – but the ears of the media are safely stuffed with cotton wool. A comparison between 2010 and 2012 showed NASA GISS had seriously altered the datasets in order that current warming could be demonstrated as a trend therefore eliminating the reality of the standstill in global warming. The fact the standstill would be a drop in global temperatures without the changes to the datasets over recent decades is worth mulling over but does any of it really matter as climate changes all the time, getting warmer and getting cooler, and the idea of having an uphill tick for years on end will eventually turn out to be so preposterous these people will be laughed off the stage.
In particular, alterations between 2010/12 were made in the far north (the coldest part of the world as far as weather stations are concerned as the far south is largely oceanic). The old data showed a regular cycle of warmings and coolings, presumably consistent with the solar cycle of 30 and 60 years. This was occurring quite independently of co2 levels. The 2010 data came up with figures of 12.90 in 1920 rising to 13.9 in 1930, falling to 13.0 in 1975 and rising to 14.0 in 2000 – only to fall back to 13.2 in 2010. The 2010 data was itself compromised as in the 1990s the hottest year of the century was 1934 – but this was cooled by algorithm long before 2010. The point made by Ewert is that in 2012 these figures had changed significantly – but was this legitimate. Is it legitimate to alter any of the old datasets, at any time (not just between 2010 and 2012). Climate scientists thinks they can – and continue to make alterations to alterations to alterations year in and year out. That sounds crass.