A Tale of Two Thermometers

This story in the UK register today outlines some of the modification that has occurred in climate data.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Climate Audit and Steve McIntyre figure in greatly. They gave me a mention too.

NASA's 1999 version
NASA’s original data: 1999

NASA's 2007 version
NASA’s reworked data: 2007
I can’t elaborate much, I’m posting this from a WiFi in McDonald’s as I’m traveling again today. Comment approval will be delayed a few hours.
About these ads

57 thoughts on “A Tale of Two Thermometers

  1. I am surely not an my own but the bare faced effrontery of the NASA/GISS people beggars belief. If the facts don’t fit they have had no issue with changing the data to fit their story.

    If that’s not true then why are all the revisons UPWARDS ?

    Why had you no interest until Steve McIntyre pointed out your Y2K error ?
    Was it because it was a DOWNWARD revision and that wouldn’t fit the story ?

    Then they have effrontery to masquerade as holier than thou ‘experts’ who’s views are sacrosanct and should be held in awe.

    The only awe I have is awe that they got away with it for so long.

    The game’s up guys and you should be hanging your heads in shame.

  2. This implies serious malfeasance on NASA’s part. In my dream world, some objective authority would investigate the science behind this.

  3. Anthony: I believe Mr. Goddard misused the graph of adjustments to U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) by the NCDC, which is a part of NOAA not NASA, when he included it in a paragraph about global temperature adjustments by NASA. But then again, all those initials get confusing at times.
    His link:

    NCDC link:

    Which is part of this NCDC discussion:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

  4. Can someone actually provide an objective explanation of NASA’s reasons for adjusting this data? Presumably they don’t just make stuff up, and must have a rationale (valid or otherwise) for the adjustments.

  5. Meanwhile it is still snowing in the high plains:

    Through noon Thursday, 17 inches of snow had fallen near Hulett, Wyo., more than a foot fell in the Wasatch Range in Utah, and 12 inches was on the ground in parts of South Dakota.

    The snow in Colorado Thursday led to numerous accidents on Interstate 70 in the foothills west of Denver, forcing the closure of the westbound lanes. Several state highways in the mountains had been closed due to icy conditions.

    The heaviest snow will fall through Friday across the western High Plains. Two feet or more of snow is forecast in the Black Hills of South Dakota, while lesser amounts spread across eastern Montana, Wyoming and Colorado, and the western Dakotas.

    Above from Accuweather

  6. I am sure Tamino the cherry picker has an answer to this cherry picking?–no crickets???

  7. This is a real shame. Maybe what should be done is to contact our Congressmen and Senators, and have them demand an accounting of this possible fraud. Not saying it is, but someone needs to be accountable at GISS for this discrepency. A full investigation is in order. And with the current climate situation, it may just get that kind of attention. It would be nice to know the “how’s and why’s” of this situation.

  8. i think it’s just getting worst day by day. we have try some way to reduce this effect but, whatever we have done seem to be useless to preventing this climate change.

  9. The vast majority of the increased temperature trend since 1900 is, in fact, the “adjustments” which have been made to the record.

    I’d like to be able to say the RAW data only shows this 0.XXC trend since 1900 but I don’t believe anyone actually knows what that number is anymore since the RAW records are no long available.

    Some of these adjustments sound perfectly reasonable when explained in theory. For example, the largest adjustment is the Time of Observation Bias (the TOBS adjustment). In the 1920s, record keepers measured the temperature at 9:00 am and 4:00 pm which gives a particular average temperature versus the true 24 hour day average temperature. So models are developed which convert the 9:00 am and 4:00 pm temp to a better 24 hour average. But how was this done exactly? How was it applied to 5,000 different locations? This adjustment, while sounding reasonable, is very susceptible to a biased researcher tweaking a number here and there to get the rising temperature trend that the researcher “knows”/”wants” to be there.

    The hot 1930s are now just a slightly warm period. The 1990s are hotter (except in the US when there is only so much “adjusting” which can be done). The Russian and Asian records, however, have been adjusted by far the most of any locations and this is the areas which drive the global temperature trend over the past 100 years up to its 0.7C.

    I’m skeptical. I play with data all day long and I know how easy it is to show whatever helps the case I’m trying to make. A person can be completely ethical in any kind data analysis but bias will always creep in. I’d like to see the RAW data with no adjustments shown along side the adjusted trend.

  10. Wow sounds to me like NASA GISS and Dr. Hansen have just been dinged. It appears that when you adjustments get to obvious and start to have obvious variance with all the other metrics. I once read a study of the 4 major metrics,
    Giss, HAD CRT, UAB, and RSS and GIss was labled an ourlier some of the warmers were quite angry. It appears to me that the temperature situation is getting debatable. I can’t wait to hear the rebutal,

    Bill Derryberry

  11. I guess I’m not sure what the answer is to this – GISS uses a baseline of 1951-1980.
    When they go back and adjust past month’s average temperatures, do they also adjust the baseline? I guess it will need adjusting, since the data that leads to an adjustment lies outside of the 1951-1980 range. If things are warm, then the new data will adjust upward the old, right? The 1951-1980 range should also go up, but by less. If an April adjustment affects months MAM and the baseline, then MAM will seem warmer, but the other three seasons will appear cooler.

    Or am I all wet and should’ve gone to bed an hour ago?

  12. sid,
    Good question.
    “Major arctic ice melt is EXPECTED”.
    Last year the UK Met Office also expected the hottest on record, and got something completely different. Everyone can make a prediction, and then boast if it just happens to be right. Every broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Yes, it has been warm, and so things melt. The temperature on a winter’s day peaks at about 1 p.m. and cool afterwards. Even when it is cooling at 2 and 3 p.m. it is still warm and you still can have melting.
    Overall though, the total sea ice worldwide is near record levels.

    We may have just passed the peak climate warm point, meaning it’s still warm. But it looks like this may be ending. Except for the CO2 concentrations, lots of leading indicators certainly point that way. Looks like we’re entering a Gore Minimum.

  13. Ric Werme,
    Makes sense to me. If you adjust the data upwards, then you have to do the same with the baseline. Would Hansen adjust the data upwards, but use the old cold baseline? The guy is pretty desparate.

    Spam,
    When you’re convinced of an outcome, but the observations show the complete opposite, then you are left with 3 choices:
    1) You admit you were wrong and look like an ass, or
    2) You change the data and hope people will not notice it, or
    3) You do like the Herrs at the Leibnitz Institute: You leave yourself a back door and try to sneak out without anyone noticing!

    My guess is that many will opt for no. 3.

  14. This is all overblown. The GISS curve easily fits within the error bars of +/-4 degree celsius ;)

  15. sid,
    Good question.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080430124607.htm

    Last year the UK Met Office also EXPECTED the hottest on record, and got something completely different. Anyone can make a prediction, and then boast if it just happens to be right. So what! Every broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Yes, it has been warm, and so things melt. The temperature on a winter’s day peaks at about 1 p.m. and cool afterwards. Even when it is cooling at 2 and 3 p.m. it is still warm and you still can have melting.
    Overall though, the total sea ice worldwide is near record levels.

    We may have just passed the peak climate warm point, meaning it’s still warm. But it looks like this may be ending. Except for the CO2 concentrations, lots of leading indicators certainly point that way. Looks like we’re entering a Gore Minimum.

  16. Sorry this is very of topic…

    Jimmy Wales the founder of wikipedia is having a net meeting in a Norwegian newspaper on Monday. Readers can send in question, that hopefully will be answered. Have anyone, any good questions regarding wiki’s censorship of sceptical views?

  17. For the cooling, there must be admission of the benefits of carbon dioxide, which will ameliorate the ill effects; for the long term, as we switch to a natural warming phase, the market will make alternative sources more attractive as hydrocarbons get more difficult to recover.
    =======================================

  18. Man Oh man, the original article is wayyyy more damning than AW’s version. After seeing it here yesterday I was determined to eventually put up the charts at my site, but after reading the Register article, any thought of delay was removed.

    CoRev, editor
    globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  19. We were to see it snow an inch or two last night but none in evidence; everything is dry with steady 25mph winds.

    But we’ve had one stretch of consecutive days (3?) above norm since Nov. Historical adjustments and heat island effect notwithstanding, the SH had no summer, how can we be above global norm at all?

    The Brits seem to be stirring, maybe there’s hope the insanity will end?

  20. More and more this whole surface air temperature tracking and predicting activity is reminding me of the chained men in Plato’s “Republic.” Sitting in a cave and unable to turn toward a light source, they perceived the passing world as shadows on the wall before them. They each would achieve prestige and their fellows’ admiration by being the best at predicting what the next shadow would be.

    In the air, land, and sea system, the part with the least ability to track the total energy in the system must be the least massive part – the air. The land is fairly well balanced between the fires above and the fires below so that leaves the sea as the most appropriate place to track the energy in the system. The sea has about a thousand times the heat capacity of the air.

    If greenhouse gases are really overwhelming the natural balance, then the place to track the effect is in the sea. Tracking the surface air temperature for trends of increasing or decreasing energy in the system must, therefore, be chasing shadows of what’s really going on.

  21. i’ve studied earth science and statistics and i suspect that if someone did their homework right then a null hypothesis might discredit the global warming alarm.
    remember these people are the same ones that help the manufacturers of r-124 to force all of us to use an inferior refrigerant that forces us to use more energy to cool ourselves off while generating more heat losses into the environment and entropy which suits their market just fine. they have a captive audience and the corner on the market.
    sadly there always seem to be enough ignorant people who believe such rubbish to win support for all of this nonsense. you know the french revolution seemed like a good idea to robespierre at the time but if you remember history then you know what happened to him in the end. it’s about time we stopped the reign of terror that all the GW and the ozone people want to impose on us as minions of anti capitalists.
    and futhermore, before you go out and buy fluorescent lights to replace all your incandescent ones, understand that when you discard a fluorescent light you also seed the good earth with a couple of tenths of a gram of mercury to be gathered up in the worlds food chain and ending up on your seafood platter. what a delicious irony.

  22. Hasse,
    I have a whole list of Qs for Wiki, but I’d need all day to write them down. So I’m not gonna bother.

  23. ARTHUR,
    you must be related to the little boy who had the audacity to shout
    “the king has no clothes.”
    the specific heat capacity of water and of air are probably no more than one or two orders of magnitude apart, but the oceans are way more than a thousand times more massive and therefore your estimate of the oceans having a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere is very conservative by orders of magnitude. an argument that’s valid even when grossly understated is a lawyers dream, easy money.
    also while we are being worried by the retreat of glaciers does anyone report the ones that are growing or are they relegated to the retraction page that no one except recluses might read. does anyone really understand the complete causes of glacial advance and retreat. the factor that’s ignored is shifts in ocean currents and their effects on climate as well as other concomitant factors like precipitation.
    water vs. air ; why didn’t i think of that? good observation.

  24. “record keepers measured the temperature at 9:00 am and 4:00 pm which gives a particular average temperature versus the true 24 hour day average temperature. So models are developed which convert the 9:00 am and 4:00 pm temp to a better 24 hour average.”

    I wonder if wind, cloud cover and humidity shifts were ever accounted for when converting? To me it is impossible to have been done on a daily basis with every record. Just more GIGO. Liars figure, figures lie. Same s***, different day. It is such a joke. Perhaps “their” plan is to put so much BS into the equation that it will become so ridiculous that most others will throw their hands up and move on to other things. Then “they” can have their way without any scrutiny. Bet “they” didn’t count on people like AW!

  25. Arthur, I’m with you. Sea based weather stations that measure sea temps are a better way of taking the earth’s temperature. In addition to the reasons you listed, such a system is immune to the Urban Heat Island effect and to siting issues. A land based station might be a CRN1 today. But what will it look like in 20, 50 or 100 years? Will it be next to a parking lot, or a building or an air conditioner?

    But a weather buoy sits in the middle of the ocean surrounded by miles of water. Twenty years from now its still the same. A hundred years from now its still the same.

  26. Well a few would do Pierre. I’m sure he don’t have time to answear more than one if that…

  27. how does the information you are finding and generating square with a story such as this, noting continued thinning of arctic ice etc.

    Well . . . (flipping to my Layman’s Postcard on cycles I have compiled) . . .

    We have a PDO that was in a positive phase (just going negative). And an AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and AO (Arctic Oscillation, an atmospheric cycle) at max. warm phase.

    The PDO/AMO has induced some melt, while the AO has not only contributed to melt but has blown the ice into currents that carry it south through the Bering straits, where (of course) it melts (as in 2007).

    Note there is record ice in the Antarctic, where these conditions do not apply.

  28. Have anyone, any good questions regarding wiki’s censorship of sceptical views?

    Well there’s [snip]. And perhaps [snip]. Also why does [snip]? And what about [snip]?

  29. “the king has no clothes.”

    The Mardi-Gras parade has no clothes. (Which accounts for the crowds.)

  30. By weight or by volume?

    The heat capacity of water is WAY more than 2 orders of magnitude greater than air by volume…

  31. Just on the basis of one paper published in Nature last week – claiming *another* 7 year pause of global warming until 2015 – and lots of CO2-warmists are jumping on it, meaning they’re moving away from the skewed warmer data (and alarmist stance) reported by the UN, NASA/Goddard-GISS and all the other algorean chartologists.

    The alarmist data and models didn’t predict the current temperature plateau since 1999 (and have yet to concede it even exists, even in the face of five other datasets that say otherwise) and certainly aren’t predicting a continued plateau until 2015.

    The rest are hedging their bets and drifting away from the UN / GISS orthodoxy. That’s a change. If this means the moderate-warming scenario is coming into broader acceptance then it also means there was *never* a consensus, nor was the science “settled.”

    But it gets better: The CO2-warmists claim is that this ongoing temperature plateau (15 years total by 2015) is due to “natural variations.” Problem is that includes a PDO that will have shifted twice since 1998, warm to cool between 1999 – 2003, to warm and cool again 2003 – 2007, with no discernable rise in temperatures (excepting of course the anthropogenically oscillating NASA/GISS dataset).

    The widespread use of the adjective “natural” would put the lie to any human-caused variations so, as Pielke points out, is actually a misnomer. But it does belie back-pedaling.

    The reason is that if “natural variations” can drown out the human signal for such a long period of 15 years, then the human climate signature must be minor compared to the signal from natural variations and the only trends worth analyzing are very long term ones.

    With that it does look like there’s been a sea change (no pun intended) in climatology and we starting to see the front edge of it as professional researchers start repositioning themselves for the newer science (soot, solar, PDO, AMO, etc.) to shake out and cautiously see how it breaks either way (between small vs. moderate human influence).

    The whole thing was shaky to begin with. The USA couldn’t possibly cut CO2 emissions by 8/10ths in 2050 if we tried, our population will be 33 percent larger, meaning we’d have to cut per capita carbon output below 18th century levels. Either we’d have to go all-nuclear (like France & Sweden) or all-hydro (like Switzerland, and that’s very unlikely). Japan, famous for being one of the most efficient energy consuming nations on the planet, can’t afford Kyoto. The reality is that the world couldn’t afford the USA to seriously blunt its capacity to drive the world’s economic engine with our record trade deficits, nor would anyone invite the risk of a carbon trade war – a concern that has already strained relations between the EU & India. It was never tenable or workable.

    We can pity Al Gore a little bit while we laugh at his expense. He’s bet the farm on this. It was quite a gambit and he’s still hoping to jawbone the cause (with a $300 million campaign, no less) while he tries to sell his old position short to someone gullible enough to take all that confederate money of dead carbon credits. I don’t think anyone will be buying, so there goes the family fortune.

    He and the rest of the camp followers will find themselves relegated to the landfill of forgotten pied pipers who banked on leading the blindfolded to the Climate Kahoutek with some dangerous and stupid magic koolaid. Apophis makes a close pass in 2013. I think Gore would make a good Bruce Willis.

    Maybe he shouldn’t have followed Maurice Strong’s advice and stayed in tobacco instead.

  32. We can pity Al Gore a little bit while we laugh at his expense. He’s bet the farm on this.

    “It is with dry tears I weep. Hella shall keep her prey.”

  33. 7 year pause of global warming until 2015? I remember reading, not too long ago, that CO2 induced warming was going to rekindle itself in 2009. Did any body else read about the 2009 date?

  34. I have been following Anthony’s blog for over a year now, nearly two. I have learned an immense amount about earth science involving climate. I have learned it is very hard to fine unbiased research, reporting of research, and funding of research. It appears that most of the funding is based on the preconditioned results, the conclusion of the research. We need professional scientists. What we do not need is professional politicians, they seem to have an agenda and they are the ones driving the funding. Most of the preconceived studies for the last 20 years seems to be following the funding and not the funding following the studies. I appreciate every one’s participation in the blog because nowadays it appears that the only way to get true results is to have non-funded research or investigation or independent research or investigation. This is what blogs like Anthony’s is driving, independent study.

    It is a great shame.

    old construction worker,
    Yep I remember those predictions they said that the current la Nina would end in 2008 and serious warming would resume in 2009. I agree with the warmist in that they say that science is self correcting. I believe that it is currently correcting itself. I just hope that the science of the past 20 years hasn’t discredited itself so badly in the public eye that recovery of the science will be greatly diminished. We need good skeptical scientific study. We need to know what is happening, We need to know how it is happening, And most importantly we need to know how to adapt to what is happening. We might slightly change the rate of change but we will not be able to stop the change. For this reason we must learn to do what man has been doing for thousands of years. Adapt to the climate nature hands us to live in.

    Bill Derryberry

    PS. I do believe that there will be some prominent scientists and politicians that will be so discredited that their reputations may not recover. It would be a shame that brilliant minds would be wasted because of agenda driven bias. I really believe that this will happen. I just hope the sword doesn’t cut to deep.

  35. Off by orders of magnitude? Let’s see…

    The mass of the atmosphere is 5.137 x 10 to the 18th kg.
    The mass of the seas is 1.37 x 10 to the 21st kg.
    Ratio of mass of sea to air is 267 to one.

    The heat capacity of air is 1.005 kJ/kgK
    The heat capacity of water is 4.184 kj/kgK
    Ratio of heat capacity of water to air is 4.16 to one.

    Hence the heat capacity of the seas is 1110 (4.16 x 267) times the heat capacity of the air. Or off by about 10% or one tenth order of magnitude.

    Am I wrong?

  36. [i]PS. I do believe that there will be some prominent scientists and politicians that will be so discredited that their reputations may not recover. It would be a shame that brilliant minds would be wasted because of agenda driven bias. I really believe that this will happen. I just hope the sword doesn’t cut to deep.[/i]

    I honestly don’t think that any of these agenda driven politicians will be a loss. After all their screaming it will be obvious for the voters, what they really are. If you have a “brilliant mind” with no common sense, you don’t get very far…

  37. Oops, I’m not smarter than a fifth grader. Off by 10% is more like being conservative by a hundredth of an order of magnitude. But I’m sure you saw that.

  38. Anthony,

    Thanks for the link to the article and all the valuable data I have gathered from your site.

    I’m thinking about doing a follow up piece focused on the 2000 USHCN adjustments, which seems to be the primary basis of the shift in GISS data. I haven’t been able to find much information about this, and from searching Steve McIntyre’s site it doesn’t appear that he has been able to find much detailed information either.

    If anyone has any information from USHCN about what they did and why in 2000, I would be very appreciative if they could pass it on.
    stevesgoddard at gmail

  39. Arthur made an interesting set of calculations which have some significant implications for me:

    “Off by orders of magnitude? Let’s see…

    The mass of the atmosphere is 5.137 x 10 to the 18th kg.
    The mass of the seas is 1.37 x 10 to the 21st kg.
    Ratio of mass of sea to air is 267 to one.

    The heat capacity of air is 1.005 kJ/kgK
    The heat capacity of water is 4.184 kj/kgK
    Ratio of heat capacity of water to air is 4.16 to one.

    Hence the heat capacity of the seas is 1110 (4.16 x 267) times the heat capacity of the air. Or off by about 10% or one tenth order of magnitude.”

    Let’s assume that these calculations are correct, for the sake of argument (although I couldn’t refute them under any conditions…). Conclusion: the sea tmperature would neither increase nor decrease quickly in response to changes in air temperature. But, given the increasing and constant energy input implied by the NASA/GISS reworked 2007 temperature chart above, we should still be able see some change in the sea temperature that could be interpreted as an increase.

    This does not seem to be the case, if I correctly recall recently published findings from the Argo project launched in 2000. Didn’t these data show not only a lack of warming in the oceans over the past eight years, but a possible actual slight cooling? Thus, Argo data would be consistent with the flat trend shown by HadCRUT over that time, possibly accentuated by the striking drop in temperature recorded from January 2007 to January 2008.

    I’m only a biologist, but data are data. Taking these as objectively as possible, I don’t see how NASA/GISS data could be treated in any other way but as an outlier, because 1) they don’t reflect possible ocean cooling, and 2) they appear seriously at varience with HadCRUT, RSS, and UAH.

    Far worse–far, far worse is the almost unavoidable conclusion that they have been massaged, if the article in the Register presents the situation objectively – and it certainly makes an impressive case for doing so. If true, this is scientific malfeasance, a disgrace, and a scandal of the highest order.

    Thanks, Anthony, for your great blog and for keeping us informed about what’s going on…

  40. Bill in V: “I do believe that there will be some prominent scientists and politicians that will be so discredited that their reputations may not recover.”

    Don’t count on it. Sylvia Browne is an example of one who hasn’t lost a step despite being constantly wrong. Those who believe and follow never let the facts get in the way.

    How many careers were permanently damaged over the Global Cooling scare?

    Al G. has made his own career of going whichever way the wind blows. During one of the preceding fuel crunches, it was Al who said in one of his books: “Everyone has a right to sufficient and inexpensive fuel.” Al hasn’t suffered the slightest for his about-faces.

  41. Mr. Goddard:

    First off, great article; I commented in support.

    Steve McIntyre made a guest post here on the significance of the Y2K flap:

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/does-hansens-error-matter-guest-post-by-steve-mcintyre/

    And in case you didn’t know, the Y2K error was discovered as a result of station survey made on this very site. Here is the story of how it happened.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/

    These links should fix you up with all the info you need.

  42. Bob Wilson,

    A further implication is that most of the sea’s response to a change in air temperature (or infrared re-radiation from CO2) would be in the top layer of the sea water with slower mixing to greater depths. Since the top three meters of sea water have nearly the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere, there should be a direct and rapid response in the near surface water to air temperature/infrared radiation.

  43. It is pretty certain that what I am suggesting has been addressed previously, but it is probably worth considering again. Much of the temperature debate seems to be regarding adjustments and calibration of the temperature data. Therefore maybe and I repeat that, maybe, there is less affect if seasonal differences are used as a measure. The climate models apparently predict that global warming will cause winters to warm more rapidly than summers, at least in high latitudes. If this is the case then the analysis of CET (Hadley) at the following link could be of interest:

    http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2m4_1.htm

  44. DAV (14:45:20) :

    “How many careers were permanently damaged over the Global Cooling scare?”

    None that I know of, however, the scale, scope, politics, and discussion of what to do about it were all much, much smaller than the current discussion. Sort of like the SC24 sunspots to date. A few books, a few articles in mainstream press, and that was in reaction to little problems like Ohio shutting down schools and industry because the Ohio River was frozen and coal barges were stuck.

    There are a few political careers I think will get destroyed, some scientists may have to find other fields of science to try to rebuild their careers. I fear the biggest impact will be in the perception of science and scientists. David letterman will get a chuckle just for starting a joke with “Scientists announced today….” Other jokes will start with “A politician, a scientist, and a terrorist go into a bar…” It will be harder to get American students interested in science careers. So yeah, it will be a disaster, but not quite like the one the AGW community is warning about.

    On the other hand, new opportunities will open up and those are much harder to forecast. Necessity is the mother of invention, and she may be busy.

  45. Evan Jones:

    You did a good reply to the question of “How does the information you are finding and generating square with a story such as this, noting continued thinning of arctic ice etc.?”

    In addition, Joseph D’Aleo over at Icecap.us announces that on May 11th he will release a paper/analysis of how the PDO and AMO correlates to both Greenland and Arctic temperatures and helps to explain the decadal changes in ice cover.

    I am looking forward to D’Aleo post because rapid ice melt in April has put current 2008 levels almost on par with 2007 levels. (As we probably all know, some waters are warmer than usual in negative phases of the PDO, and I wonder whether that could have an impact on Arctic ice.)

  46. Ric Werme
    Just checked out your website…I’m from Vermont and the Old Man on the mountain in NH was only about 100 km away from my boyhood home! I wasn’t aware that it had fallen off. Has anyone attributed this to you know what?

  47. Anthony,
    In the 2006 Hanson, Ruedy, Sato paper “Global Temperature Change” Hanson describes “quantifying” the temperature anomally in places where there is “incomplete station coverage” by extrapolating what is known about the temperature in the area with poor station coverage with ” a model generated data set”. Using this technique, he managed to show warming of Antarctica and the Eastern Canadian Arctic where the available surface records showed cooling for the past 20 years. (one of many funky manuevers) More recent mapping of the “temperature anomalies” continues to show the greatest change in areas like the Arctic and parts of Africa where surface data is very limited. The question I have is: ” Does the NASA-GISS data still use computor generated temperatures to extrapolate with the data from areas with limited coverage?” If the computor is set to generate temperatures consistant with the General Circulation Models currently used by NASA and these temperatures still extrapolated with the actual measurements then of course the NASA_GISS temperatures would continue to rise as well as be subject to the revisions pointed out in Climate Audit and wattsupwiththat.

    REPLY: Yes they still use the data extrapolation for tehse areas…part fot eh reason GISS runs warmer than the other data sets.

  48. Pierre Gosselin commented about my home page and my photo of The Old Man of the Mountain, a rock formation that put all other rock faces to shame. Especially the Face on Mars formation that some thought was an alien structure designed to get our attention. This is completely OT, but this thread is old enough so what the heck.

    The Old Man remains New Hampshire’s state symbol and will for the indefinite future. California’s symbol includes an extinct bear, so I expect he’ll be around for decades to come.

    Pierre, did you check out the link to http://www.mountwashington.org/about/visitor/oldman.php ? It has the best description of what happened and a combination before/after image. Basically the entire weight was borne by a small contact region at the base of his chin. That slipped or broke and all five blocks fell. Falling in spring after another season of freeze/thaw cycles is what I expected. No one has suggested that climate change did him in, though my wife wrote a letter to the newspaper suggesting that recent election wins by the Democrats led the Old Man to jump.

    The fall happened during the night, and may have been heard by a couple campers. The morning started with Cannon Mountain in the clouds so it was mid morning before people realized what happened. As the news spread, a lot of people drove up to pay their respects, I was tempted to. No one knows when the profile first became visible, most people think he was around since the Ice Age, I would be surprised if it were more than a few hundred years, there’s a lot of rock in the talus pile at the base of the cliff and that’s all since the glaciers retreated.

    Driving through Franconia Notch just isn’t the same any more.

  49. Pierre: Thanks. I am looking into some of the various cycles and their warm/cool phases.

    Description (basic). Duration (of cycle). Variance (how hot? how cold? local or worldwide?). Currency (where are we in the cycle?). History (“the record”).

    You’d be surprised how hard it is to nail down some of this most basic data from the various articles. One would almost think they don’t actually know and are trying to sound as if they had answered the basic questions while not doing anything of the sort.

    HOW warm? HOW cool? Ids it a local or worldwide scale on the left side of the ^%$& graph? Put a LABEL on it. already! I don’t care about the ^%$&* pressure, how does it affect TEMPERATURES? Sheesh!

    I am boiling it down to filecard form. Short, sweet, concise. (One of several papers I am working on.)

  50. Bias and wanting the results a certain way can be strong corrupters of science. But, this continual revision of the past to be cooler, just to make the present seem warmer ought to strain the credulity of the most ardent AGW fanatic. Add to this the fact that the site and observer bias is known to strongly favor warming so that any realistic correction should be a lowering of current temperatures, and what we’re seeing, especially from NASA/GISS is leaving the realm of scientific debate and entering the realm of either fantasy or fraud.

  51. Obviously, the state of climate science in the year 1999 was not sufficient to correctly compute the past temperatures of the US, i.e. the country with the best available temperature records. What does this say about the capability to predict future global temperatures?

  52. Anthony-

    I found today’s Dilbert comically relevant to some of the discussions you have here about temperature data. I can’t seem to link to the specific strip, but for today, http://www.dilbert.com has it on the front page.

Comments are closed.