Many folks think I am a conspiracy nut claiming that NASA has tinkered with historical climate data. For those who doubt me (and for anyone), I hereby offer the chance to follow the straightforward process below to replicate my effort and to prove or disprove to themselves my point. This should take no more than about ten minutes for an Excel-savvy person.
This process uses NASA-GISS’s own data published in 2005 and again in 2015. So, this is the info they say is good and worthy. Here goes:
— Step 1: Download the 2015 NASA/GISS version of the Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt
— Step 2: Download the 2005 NASA/GISS version of the Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly from here: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051019133758/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig_A.txt
Because the 2005 data has been “disappeared” by NASA from their publicly available data, the trusty Wayback Machine net crawling internet archive makes history available.
The data for each set will arrive in your browser in three simple columns: Year, Annual Mean, and 5-year Mean. Highlight and copy all the data and put it on a spreadsheet. You may need to paste it onto a Word document, save it as a text file, and import it to your spreadsheet depending on your spreadsheet system and your skill/experience/proficiency.
Once you get all the data onto a spreadsheet you can line them up and compare. Here are my observations:
- The annual means have been adjusted down for all data prior to 1966.
- The annual means have been adjusted up for all data after 1970.
- The rate of these annual changes is nearly linear.
- There is no explanation available to explain why NASA’s 2005 version of historical data was incorrect and that it needed to be adjusted in the 2015 version.
The last point is the most meaningful to me and the most damaging to the credibility of NASA-GISS. They published data in 2005 and said it was good. But in 2015 they have discarded the 2005 data and replaced it without explanation. This calls into question NASA’s credibility:
- What was wrong with the 2005 data that is now discarded?
- Why should I believe the 2015 data?
- Is this deceit or incompetence? Willfulness or absent-mindedness?
I encourage all to compare results with mine. Here’s a link to my drop box with my files in it:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2pjgbysmii7vfmv/AABSLopJeGFrZ0SgX1Dk7p1Ca?dl=0
Your answer should look something like this:
So, you be the judge. Let me know what you think.
Comments will be moderated. Civil and cogent posts will be cleared.
h/t to SG/TH/PH/CB/AW and all the others who’ve actively pursued this topic.
Climate Collections 