Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire German Prof. uncovers massively altered NASA temperature data.

But will it get any mainstream attention?

http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/...-massively-altered/#sthash.2q2vyuvv.dpbs


[quote]
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotNovember 20, 2015 2:01 PM

“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets!
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/...-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/
Veteran journalist Günter Ederer writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public. Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses on which to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found was “unbelievable”: From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.” Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming. The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C. But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were: • Reducing the annual mean in the early phase. • Reducing the high values in the first warming phase. • Increasing individual values during the second warming phase. • Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995. • Shortening the early decades of the datasets. • With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened. The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming. Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.” Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds: Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.” Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo. Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert: Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.” Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it. All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fkt-online.de./quote]

Boy the internet with it's information dissemination must be a real thorn in the side for the One World Governmenters. Not that it slows them and their agenda down really. Just sayin'.

Not surprising. But also won't get any attention.

Somebody should explain paragraphing to Mr. Morano.

Democrat lies matter.

My thought too. Tough to read that way. As to content I'm not surprised and not just because it's gotten to be a multi-billion dollar industry.

Kevin Gibson's gonna kick his ass over them lies.

Climate change neutrality, it works......

The untrue propaganda machine does nothing to gain control over the masses, as it simply alienates them.

Sorry pardner, but it most certainly does. Propaganda sways public opinion (of the unthinking masses) who then quietly sits by as more and more legislation "for our own good" is shoved down our throats. That's why these studies are funded with the understanding that their findings will support what the sponsor wants. Most of the masses aren't alienated, they trust this "scientific" BS at face value and even repeat as truth. It's the minority who has enough brains to see past the smoke and mirrors, spot the lies and the reasons behind them, but are largely helpless to do anything because the "masses" think the government is great and here to solve all their problems.

Not surprising in the least.

They've been caught too many times fraudulently cooking the data to fit their preconceived outcomes. This is just another example.

Click on the link for the properly formatted article.

Methodology for the "Consensus is Truth" global warming high priests:

1. Measure temperatures.

2. Adjust temperature readings to fit pre-conceived model.

3. Announce that data proves model.

4. Demand more funding.

Ya forgot - 5. Ridicule and prosecute deniers.

;-{>8

Dang - that would make a fabulous bumper sticker and/or T-shirt...

Another reason I hate nasa and their mostly commie astro-nutwashers.

I could take that personally, gunner. But I've been out of NASA for 30 years now.

I can read the original article, but there is a link below as to why some climate data has been adjusted:
Does noaa adjust historical climate data?

It would seem therefore there are legitimate reasons to adjust some data.

That said, given that the about of possible warming/cooling that is being debated is very small, and that these adjustments are often equal to or exceed the values of the potential increase/decrease, to me that the accuraurcy of the process data suspect to say the least..

This has been going on for years. Long before Global Warming became Climate Change since the globe was not warming. And yet, it is "settled" science. Does that makes all science the stuff of circus sideshows?