Gavin’s New Site

Gavin Schmidt at NASA created a new site site to prove that he isn’t tampering the data. It accomplishes the exact opposite.

NASA-2000-2012-2016

Data.GISS: GISTEMP HISTORY

Gavin nearly tripled global warming from 2000 to 2016, during a time when satellites showed the Earth cooling.

Screen Shot 2016-09-06 at 6.18.58 AM

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Gavin’s New Site

  1. Steve Case says:

    Anyone with modest ability can find old GISS data on the net and compare it to the latest stuff they are pooping out. The graph below is nearly a year old now, but it illustrates the point. Most of the data has been changed over the last ten years, and all of the changes after 1980 are up and most of the changes prior to 1980 are down. Anyone can apply the “Duck Test” and conclude that the lower the past increase the recent pattern isn’t just the way it happened to turn out.

    By the way, the exact same thing is going on with sea level.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “By the way, the exact same thing is going on with sea level.”

      Very true. Some of the data shows the sea level is actually decreasing as I showed several times over at the old website. link

      This makes sense when you think about the glaciers that have re-established after melting during the early Holocene.

      • Steve Case says:

        I’ve posted the one below a few times now, but it never hurts slap it up here again (-: Each squiggle is a different release from Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group. And what those plots tell you is rate for a particular date from a particular time series of data. For instance, CU’s Release 2005_rel5 says that in 2004 the rate was about 2.9 mm/yr, and CU’s Release 2006_rel3 says that in 2004 the rate was almost 3.2 mm/yr.

        And if you look carefully at 2011_ rel4 and 2016_rel3 it sure looks like the CU crew has started to lower the past and bump up the recent history.

        By the way the Jason 3 satellite was launched in January and I expect the next Release to use that data, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some large data adjustments are made. Besides if you go to CU’s Sea Level page on the web at sealevel.colorado.edu, you will find a paper with the title, “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?” So a finding of acceleration of sea level rise on the next release is just about a done deal.

    • Andy DC says:

      There was a big article in the NY Times about how sea level rise is now way out of control. Their charts looked very much like the “adjustments” made in the chart above. All timed for the upcoming election. Unless we elect Hillary and fight climate change through carbon taxes and world socialism, we are doomed!

      What an absolute farce and so incredibly corrupt!

      I am glad Hermine was such a complete flop after so much hype.

  2. TA says:

    Bam! You shot that down quick! Love that graph comparison.

  3. Glacierman says:

    An issue that doesn’t get enough attention is long-term plan for these adjustments:

    When/if they finally get what they want they will simply adjust the data back to some semblance of reality and claim that they have healed the Earth……that somehow passing some law or enacting some treaty has lowered the temperatures and reduced the rate of sea level rise, when all along it war really ma-made…..by data manipulation.

    • Steve Case says:

      B I N G O, That deserves repeating:

      Glacierman said at 3:15 pm:

      An issue that doesn’t get enough attention is long-term plan for these adjustments:

      When/if they finally get what they want they will simply adjust the data back to some semblance of reality and claim that they have healed the Earth……that somehow passing some law or enacting some treaty has lowered the temperatures and reduced the rate of sea level rise, when all along it war really ma-made…..by data manipulation.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Until that happens, I can’t wait for them to adjust everything to a near vertical line and see how they explain that one.

  4. pdfbt40 says:

    Well at last, proof that GW is inflenced by man’s activities.
    ‘Scientists’ like Gavin’s manipulation of the raw measured data is to blame !!

  5. Josh Feldman says:

    In the second chart you – accidentally (I assume) – charted RSS-land against GIStemp global. You can’t compare a land-only data set against a global one and claim they are depicting the same thing. It’s dishonest.

    • tonyheller says:

      gistemp-dts is their surface stations, which are their land only temperatures.

      But thanks for your clueless, misinformed and dishonest statement. I’ve come to expect at least one of these on every thread.

      • Josh Feldman says:

        My apologies, Tony, you are right. I was confusing GIStemp loti (which attempts to be global by including SSTs) with the dTs – which is land stations only. But when I went to verify your chart, I found that mine didn’t look like yours much. I definitely saw a difference in slope between the GIStemp dTs and the RSS land-only for the period specified, but the difference in slope and the difference in curves was nothing like what you depicted. I quickly realized what it was: the “mean:60” smoothing factor…

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Gosh Josh,

      RSS, is a far more comprehensive temperature data set,that covers most of the worlds atmosphere and everyday.

      If RSS says it is cooling since the start of the new century,then it is.

  6. CheshireRed says:

    Clearly your work is having an impact Tony.

  7. CheshireRed says:

    Through 2000-2012-2016 GISS added 0.9C of warming…just as the Pause was crucifying AGW theory right before the eyes of the world. Over 18 years of no warming and over 20 years of ‘no statistically significant’ warming was giving the Team sleepless nights.

    They said 15 years of no warming would falsify AGW theory. They NEVER expected to ever get even close to that figure.
    UK prof Phil Jones said ’15 years (of no warming) and we’re in trouble’. As the Pause sailed past 15 years that figure was promptly upped to 20 years!
    US Ben Santer arbitrarily raised the bar from 15 to 17 years. (for no obvious reason)
    The UK Met Office said (I paraphrase) ‘come back in 50 years’. ie…they weren’t for admitting ANY failure of the theory or models at any time, regardless of how they were comparing to real-world observations. ‘Scientists’, eh?
    The Pause was never going to be allowed to get anywhere near the 30 year timeline that distinguishes climate from weather. That would’ve derailed the billion-dollar climate choo-choo express and we can’t have that.

    Lo and behold, look how those 15-18 year timelines fit almost perfectly with the timing of the above adjustments – made just as the Pause was crashing through their own thresholds and thus annihilating their blessed theory on their own terms – in the process potentially trashing $multi-billion climate racket. Their response? Cook the books, fiddle the data, cheat, lie, adjust, corrupt the evidence and smear ALL opposition. Anything to keep the show on the road.

    Truly, where’s ‘RICO’ when you need him?

  8. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Probably most of the overestimation of warming by GISS is due to improper treatment of the UHI and the increasing closure of rural stations.

  9. Robinson says:

    At some point I just got so angry I can’t read this stuff any more. How can he get away with it? Complete mystery.

  10. Ilma says:

    Tony, so write a Schmidt/GISS ‘dirty dossier’ and send it to all the world’s MSM Editors-in-Chiefs, so they are officially notified of absence of truth in his ‘work’ and the total unreliability of citing it. If they continue to peddle this stuff, they will do so knowingly and so be complicit.

  11. Pingback: Understanding The “Hottest Year Evah” | Climatism

  12. ELC says:

    I wrote a while back on how their changes fly in the face of their asserted confidence intervals.

    “Though climate scientists use complex mathematical formulas to justify changes to the temperature record and to justify the associated confidence intervals, simple arithmetic shows that either the former or the latter, or both, are wrong….”

    http://www.elcore.net/ClimateSanity/GISTEMPsOverconfidenceIntervals.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.