Twenty-five percent of all global warming is due to data tampering at GISS since 2004.
This is on top of all their data tampering prior to 2004.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
You are Cherry Picking on this one. If you go back further you will find that over 50% of recent warming is due to human causes! It was caused by the Al-Gore-Rhythm used to create the models they use to provide the SAT!
NASA GISS even admits that.
“Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
It could well be 125% of the warming was Mann Made! 😉
I found this explanation at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/gavin_models_bscapture.png
Is this a joke? The graph bears no relationship to the headline. The links provide no clue.
Sorry, I can’t cure reader stupidity
RE: Geezer – “The graph bears no relationship to the headline”
Geezer,
There are two files. Both files contain temperature anomalies for each year, in hundredths of degrees C, as compared to the based period 1951-1980.
One file was generated in 2004, the other in 2012.
For each year in both files, you can subtract the temperature anomalies. For example, the 1998 global temperature anomaly in the 2004 file is “56”. The 1998 global temperature anomaly in the 2012 file is “61”. 61-56 = 5. Note the values represent hundredths of degrees C, so when you look at the graph for 1998, you can see the value 0.05 plotted.
If you calculate the anomaly differences for the remaining years, and create a graph, you can see a positive trend in temperature adjustments when comparing the 2012 file to the 2004 file.
Finally, Steven asserts that the adjustment account for 25% of all global warming over the period 1901-2004.
The max value in the graph is 0.09. The minimum value is -0.15. The difference = 0.24
0.24 is 25% of 0.96
Stevens assertion is correct.