Would the Globe Still Warm If the Data Were Wrong?
We're going to find out the answer to this question.
This series is put together from raw data that NASA massages before release. In the past, they have refused to reveal what they do to the data, and they still do (see below).
But, that didn't stop a bright statistician from reverse engineering their method, and showing that somehow the temperatures are all bumped up after January 2000.
This wouldn't matter if the bump is small. It isn't.
The range in the annual averages is about plus or minus 1 degree celsius over the 120 years of data prior to the anomaly. The anomaly adds about 0.8 degrees to each of the last several observations in the series.
The most obvious effect of this is that the widely touted claim that many of the hottest years on record occurred over the last decade or two turns out to be false. With the incorrect data, the hottest year was 1998, and 2006, 1999, 2001 and 1990 were all in the top 10. Those years are still hot with the new data, but the 1930s is clearly the hot decade, with 4 of the top 10 occuring over an 9 year period.
You really need to ask yourself how it is possible for so much global warming research to be funded without data anomalies being found for several years. It's almost like they weren't interested in looking for that sort of thing. You also need to ask yourself why this wasn't found by someone friendly to the global warming position - the only folks I know who regularly avoid revealing uncomfortable truths about themselves are preschoolers.
Aw shucks ... they won't really have to change all those carbon micromanagement initiatives just because the data they've been spouting is wrong, will they? I mean ... jeez ... they're all so invested in that.
N.B. We do know that they do things like ignoring the movement of one of their weather stations to a spot right next to a building's air conditioning unit - you know ... the thing that blows hot air onto anything near by, like, say, the thermometer.
Comments