GISS: Tortured (click to see animation)
My advice: ignore all the surface temperature records full stop. GISS (administered by warmist activist James Hansen), HadCRUT (Phil “Climategate” Jones), they’re all as bad as each other – “homogenised” to within an inch of their lives. So it comes as little surprise that the latest version of the Hadley/CRU temperature database now shows 2010 as being warmer than 1998. How convenient.
And isn’t it amazing that it now better fits the global warming narrative? Just like GISS – it was inconvenient that the 1930s were warmer in that dataset than the present, but never mind, they found a way round it (click the image) – magic!
And oddly, despite massive urbanisation in the 20th century, many of the adjustments make earlier years COOLER, the opposite of what would be expected in order to compensate for modern UHI.
If you torture the data enough, they will surely confess:
Researchers have updated HadCRUT – one of the main global temperate records, which dates back to 1850.
One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region, which has experienced one of the greatest levels of warming.
The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.
The update is reported in the published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
HadCRUT is compiled by the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (Cru) at the University of East Anglia, and is one of three global records used extensively by climatologists.
The other two are produced by US-based researchers at Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).
Cru’s director, Phil Jones, explained why it was necessary to revise the UK record.
“HadCRUT is underpinned by observations and we’ve previously been clear it may not be fully capturing changes in the Arctic because we have had so little data from the area,” he said.
“For the latest version, we have included observations from more than 400 (observation) stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada.”
Prof Jones added: “This has led to better representation of what’s going on in the large geographical region.”
Despite the revisions, the overall warming signal has not changed. The scientists say it has remained at about 0.75C (1.4F) since 1900. (BBC)
Oh well, I guess there’s only so much you can do in one hit, but give it time.
Much more at WUWT.
Australian Climate Madness 
First they take away alot of the measuring station’s data ( thousands of them in the early 1900’s) and now to make the story right, as Simon points out, they add some of them back. Bollocks !!! The sooner some serious court action is taken against this sort of thing the better.
Boy, I don’t know why people are so concerned about CO2. They should be far more worried about Jones, Hansen and Peterson. Every time one of these guys gets near some data sets the world starts warming!
Blair – very true – I’ll use this concept in a letter, if I may. I can’t help wondering – if warming hadn’t stopped 15 years ago, would all these data sets still have been modified? We know, from the leaked Emails, that they’ve made every effort to hide (or make disappear) the medieval warm period. Now they’re up to their tricks again. The data wasn’t fitting the hypothesis, so they looked for more data that they could add to the set to make it fit.
Revisionism – I’m not surprised in the least.
They’ve been doing this for years.
The only way to stop this sort of nonsense is to test it in a Court of Law… just like what happened in New Zealand:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=14&Itemid=47
A new low in warmist (s-)hysteria?
As someone on WUWT pointed-out, if this sort of thing was done in the private sector, eg., a public listed company adjusting its accounts, it would be called fraud and severely punished, the Directors probably jailed and fined and certainly thrown of the register.
When it is perpetrated by (taxpayer-funded) government climate scientists – on which hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies depends – no problem. Nothing to see here, move on please…
Oht he shamelessness!
Just as well we have satellite data to provide an unbiased (untampered) record back to 1979 and for sea surafce temps to 2003… but for how long?
this is new adjusted, value added, data right? well we all know anything spat out of in HadCRUT is “fiddled” with…
But Blair, if global cooling/warming/climate change is a myth, how will these guys get money and chicks?
If you believed that 98 was the warmest – you should believe that 2010 is even warmer – data for both years comes from same Swindlers. When I was telling you that; 98 wasn’t warmer or colder than any other year; I was ridiculed by the ”Skeptics” If you believe one of their lies, because it suits you; but not the other – what does that makes you?
Now they say: the WHOLE planet is warmer by 0,75C … That means that they know in a hundredth of a degree with precision. On 99,999999999% of the surface area of the planet nobody is monitoring. Above 2m altitude in 29km and 9998m troposphere nobody is monitoring; but the fake Skeptics don’t ask a question about: when close to the ground is warmer = why upper atmosphere is colder.
B] On the few places they monitor – they collect data of the hottest minute in 24h, what about for the other 1439 minutes?! If tomorrow the hottest minute is warmer by 3C than today – is the planet warmer by 3C ?! If day is warmer than normal, as in clear sky= night is colder than normal, not warmer planet. If the HOTTEST minute is cooler than on same day last year – at least 900 minutes are warmer on that same day than last year. Is one minute more important than 900 minutes in 24h?! Wake up Skeptics; there are no warmer or colder years for the whole planet!!!
Warmist have being duped by East Anglia – Skeptics have being duped by East Anglia, and by Ian Plimer. CO2 is increasing more than anybody expected – GLOBAL warming is not happening – game is over. Time to realize that: oxygen + nitrogen are controlling the temperature to be same every day of every year to be overall the same, they are 998999ppm of the troposphere.
If Plimer ADMITS that his GLOBAL warmings were NOT GLOBAL; Gillard would have dropped the carbon tax as a hot potato. Plimer is guilty for the highest carbon tax in Australia, not Gillard. HE manipulated the skeptical people, to believe in his crap. Yes, 0,75C means that: they know with precision, in a hundredth of a degree…. Some of the Warmist claim that 2010 was warmer by 0,145C than the year before… that is with precision in a thousandth of a degree = rubbing Plimer’s and his followers noses, with Ian’s own crap. The truth will win, just will take much longer, thanks to Plimer and his apostols, drowning in his crap. Warmist believe 90% possibility in GLOBAL warming, because they are clever; the 10% is their backdoor exit… Ian + his ”Skeptics” believe 101% in GLOBAL warming…?!?!?!
See they can manipulate the data to read what they want. So how do we know that the Mercury measurements on a thermometer haven’t been fiddled with to read hotter temperatures. What else have they fiddled with? And how did they get so much power?
Science on the global warming hasn’t been settled. It has just been manipulated.
I have just used the same technique to reanalyze my life, I am now faster, fitter, stronger, in short “hotter” in my sixties than I ever was in my 20’s and 30’s.
Now all I need are large Government grants so I can convince the rest of world that my delusion is infact true, any suggestions on how this can be achieved.
Why were those data unacceptable before, but now, all of a sudden, acceptable?