Are the climate data manipulated?

Online diary of members of the journalistic network The Axis of Good

Gnter Ederer November 18, 2015, translated by Parsifal Rain

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert has advised in 36 countries in the construction of 83 dams.
In the study of rock permeability and the methods for sealing the geologist specialized.
Exact measurements, precise statistical surveys were needed in order to can rule out later defects or even a
disaster.
With his methodical thoroughness he began after his retirement to challenge climate change.
He began, as learned in the study to evaluate the temperature measurements of the usual hot and cold
phases.
Since 1880 there has been a worldwide network.
The data thus obtained are administered a division of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and
available on the Internet.
Of the now 7.365 stations are evaluable data sets of 1.153 stations for the period from 1881. These figures are
also the basis for the NASA which supplies it to the so-called IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
And from these public-accessible data Ewert has made a rather incredible discovery: the between the years
2010 and 2012, the temperatures measured since 1881 were massively changed retrospectively, thus resulting
in a significant global warming mainly for the period from 1950, which previously so did not exist.
It reads like a conspiracy theory, what Ewert wrote in the summary of his years of labor of Sisyphus:
A comparison of the 2010 data with those of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS has its own records changed so that
we have recorded especially since the beginning of the postwar period a significant global warming, which does
not exist like that.
Ewert has noticed in a report that the temperature data of Reykjavik and Godthb (Nuuk) Nuur had been
changed retroactively.
For the data from 2012 on, a higher temperature rise resulted in these arctic stations than with the numbers
before 2010.
An analysis was possible because the data provided by NASA-GISS had been archived before 2010 and could
therefore be compared with those from after 2012.
Ewert searched randomly another 120 stations in the whole world, and got down to work to compare the data
from the years before 2010 and after 2012.
And he always came to the same conclusion: The temperatures supplied from 2012 on showed a higher
warming than the published data until 2010.
To these, it is save to say counterfeiting, not be able to discover so easy, ten different methods were used which
only opening up to who has both sets of data, and is not afraid of the mammoth-task to compare them.
One of the foundations of this work are those of the IPCC (climate panel) published seven heating and cooling
periods, beginning in 1881 and based on 1.097 stations.

Are the climate data manipulated?

Legend of the chart: The reference point of approximately 13,8C corresponds IPCC Global Mean Temperature-about 1880
The cooling of the phase 5 was until 1960 mostly low and then much stronger - despite increasing emissions
300 ppm: 3 units CO2 - in 10.000 air units - 400 ppm: 4 CO2 units in 10.000 air units
Increase in CO2 - concentration in the air due to emissions: 1 CO2 content per 10.000 air-parts

Thus we had in 1881 an average global temperature of 13.8 degrees Celsius, which dropped to 1895 to 12.9
degrees, then until 1905 rose to 14.3 degrees, fell till 1920 to below 12.9 degrees, 1930 raised to 13.9 degrees,
in 1975 dropped to 13 degrees, by the year 2000 rose to 14 degrees, and has since cooled down again until
2010 to 13.2 degrees.
The previously warm 2015 is not critical to the long-term trend.
It just shows that it is warmer in 2015 by 1 degree than in 1880, which means for one year is no trend reversal.
During this period, the CO2 concentration of 3 parts in 10.000 parts air is risen to 4 parts without affecting the
cycles of the rise or fall of temperature.
As mentioned above: These are data from the IPCC.
Now, if the data for individual years in the heating or cooling zones are changed, to offer completely different
climate scenarios.
Ewert has collected for 120 randomly selected stations the tens of thousands of single data that were specified
for each year by NASA before and after 2010.
So the changes in the seven phases of climate became clear.
The manipulations are visible in the diagrams.
His print data would result in a 6-meter-long list.
It turns out that ten different methods were used to produce global warming.
They are all documented in the study with examples.
6 of the 10 examples were used most often.
A reduction of the annual mean values in the initial phase.
A reduction of individual higher values in the first warmth phase.
An increase in individual values in the second warmth phase.
A suppression of incipient circa 1995 second cooling phase.
A shortening of the data series for the previous decades.
For long time series, the data series were even reduced for the early centuries.
For the reduction of the data series by deletion of data from previous decades, the example is Darwin
2

Are the climate data manipulated?

(Australia).
The data of the first diagram with the NASA-GISS measurements from 1882 to March 2010 shows the cooling of
- 0.0068 degrees Celsius per year.
In Chart 1 shows the NASA - Data 1882-2010, a cooling of -0.0068 C per year:
In March 2012,
NASA-GISS made
only the
temperatures from
1964 on available,
resulting in a
warming of +
0.0038 degrees per
year.
In December 2012,
NASA-GISS offers
again a new series
of data. It began
again in 1897
But now much colder
temperatures
miraculously were
specified for the years
1897 until 1964, as
before of 2010.
This increased the
annual rise in
temperature one more
time, at + 0.0104 Celsius.

On an other example, the

observation station of
Palma de Mallorca is
clearly shown as by a
significant reduction in
the data in the first
lowering phase from
1881-1895 and then
further lower
adjustments finally arose
a warming from a
cooling.
Show the data, which were published by the NASA-GISS from 1880 to March 2010, an annual cooling of 0.0076
degrees Celsius, according to figures arising from the same source in March 2012 a warming of + 0.0074
3

Are the climate data manipulated?

degrees per year.

Diagram Palma De Mallorca 1

It is noticeable that some annual details are missing.

And as if that were not enough,
the figures change again in August
and in December 2012.
Now, because of the new sets of
numbers it has become even
warmer.
Also the diagram of December
figures has again gaps.
Now there is an annual warming of + 0.01202 degrees per year.

Whoever takes the trouble and engaged in the endless lists of Ewerts, finds so highlighted, when and how the
previously measured data after decades of the doctrine of the man-made global warming to be adjusted, so
that a temperature-rise becomes plausible.
Then, when comparisons are made, it has become much warmer today compared to the years since
industrialization, as reported over and over again, so are these messages that rest upon constantly changing
temperatures of earlier decades.
The thesis of the man-made climate change gains a whole new meaning: Yes, is always made by people when
the data to be adjusted the theory.
4

Are the climate data manipulated?

The hard work of Prof. Ewert has precursors, fits into a series of scandals and inconsistencies that are simply
ignored by the political supporters of the man-made climate change.
After the manipulations of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) of the University of East Anglia, the other climatedata source of the IPCC, came out and their chief Phil Jones was forced to resign, also the two American
renowned meteorologists Joseph D'Alemo and Anthony Watts studied data from 6.000 gazing stations of NASA.
On 26 January 2010, they published a 110-page study under the heading: 'Surface Temperature Records: Policy
Driven Deception?'
They describe therein hundreds of irregularities, such as transfers of measuring stations in city centers, triage of
measuring stations, which are sometimes considered and not even taken into account, cyclical changes in the
multi-decadic-exchanges of cooling and warming phases.
In summary, they come to the conclusion that NOA and NASA, along with CRU are the driving forces behind the
systematic puffing-up of global warming in the 20th century and that it was an urgent need to be examined the
terrestrial temperature data by independent climate scientists who do not have own interest in the outcome of
the evaluations.
There were the contradictions of the daily reports in the German press about the impending heat collapse of
the Earth and the reports of snow in Jerusalem, bitter winters on the east coast of the US, unknown cold spells
in Argentina, etc. which Prof. Friedrich Karl Ewert, Rainer Link and Prof. Hans-Joachim Ldecke prompted about
the same time to evaluate the available temperature data of NASA in an elaborate work.
It was published in Singapore in 2011 and came to the same results as those of the Americans.
'An analysis of 2.246 surfaces - temperature data' was the description of their study.
The collection of facts were neither refuted by the warming scientists, nor respected.
Hardly a politician and journalist bothered to consult the extensive number of works.
The thought-terminating clich, that 98 percent of the world's scientists are in agreement and the 18.000 of the
best scientists in the world have worked that out dominate the public perception and national and international
policy.
The extensive research work of Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise, who proves especially that more than
5.000 of the IPCC climate scientists that are listed in the 'Bible of the IPCC', had not even passed study.
It must be emphasized once again:
All data which Ewert in his new study uses, are freely accessible if one knows by what and where to look and
there are all data that NASA itself has published, so no 'concoctions' of the 'climate deniers'.
According to the NASA data from 2010, the surface temperature of the world from 1940 to today - declined
1,110 degrees and since 2000 - 0.4223.
The changes are taken into account, which result from 'heat islands' [over cities].
Thus, the effects are described, where measuring stations are moved to the cities or their positions are framed
by settlements.
The cooling is true for all continents, except Australia which has in the last cycle, starting in 2000 (Phase Seven)
heated to 0.6339 Celsius.
Figures for Europe:
From 1940 to 2010 result, calculated using the data from 2010, a temperature drop of - 0.5465 and since 2000
for - 0.3739.
After the scandal around the manipulated data of the CRU at the University of East Anglia and now by the
changes of NASA at their temperature measurements - actually these serious events should be accurately
examined by independent scientists and either refuted or lead to political consequences.
5

Are the climate data manipulated?

It doesn't bear contemplating if all the CO2 laws, the interventions in the market to save the world, the German
energy laws on climate protection and so on would be based on manipulated temperature data.
An entire industry of saviors of the climate and the resulting trillions of dollars that are so invested or deindustrialized are at stake.
Those who have so far dealt with the global warming, such as the Federal Environment Ministry, the Federal
Environmental Agency or even the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research are in any case can not
appertain as experts.
They would have to question theirselves.
The records are always available to the public.
The studies of Prof. Ewert be sent upon request via email.
(ewert.fk[at]online.de)
The article appeared first in 'Die Axe des Guten' (The Axis Of Good)
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/sind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert
and was authorized to translate and publish by the Author Gnter Ederer
http://www.guenter-ederer.de/

Are the climate data manipulated?