Oh boy! Now we learn that Antarctic weather stations data was rigged artificially to show an upward trend of warming. Firstly, as evidenced by CRU leaked emails:
“From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:16:28 -0700
Cc: Tim Osborn , Ben Santer
Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru
Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88,
Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing. Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just representedby a single
box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. Itwould be
better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’gridded data.For area averages, the difference is between having the S Pole representthe wholeregion south of 85S, and having (as now) it represent one 72nd of thisregion. Itis pretty obvious to me what is better.This affects the impression of missing data too of course.
Then secondly, another smoking gun of more climatologist data fraud as shown by the latest computer analysis of the GHCN Mean Temperatures dataset(s) into an SQL database. It seems the more experts look into these numbers the more ‘fudge’ they find. One analyst has found that of the original 110 dataseries, only 18 are left to compile the official IPCC final numbers. The original 2700+ datapoints are down to around 600.
And what do you know – the series shows a whopping slope of 0.0447 that would mean a trend of 4.47 degrees of warming per century!
It is not possible to accidentally remove all series that show less of an upward trend, and settle for 18 of the most upward trending series (thus raising the warming / century by 3 degrees!). I don’t know how they do things with the GHCN dataset, or who is responsible for this, but just like New Zealand this is pretty damning evidence that all the “adjustments” are done to deliberately corrupt data to cause specific trends.
At the Air Vent climate site they have put a lot of work into a Steig Antarctic reconstruction and hope to publish a paper on it soon. However, anyone can independently verify this fraud themselves by setting up an SQL-database and running their own sql-queries – although I suspect it’s mostly IT nerds who know how to do that.