Unwittingly, but with good intentions, the facilitators were internally motivated to help produce what they thought was the desired outcome, but only if they had come to some conclusion in their own mind of what the outcome was supposed to be beforehand.

I still seriously doubt the majority did so unwittingly. There’s no way to tell of they were doing something on purpose or not, except their word.

Indeed. We need to have a disclaimer attached to everything from climate science that says:

*All temps are subject to change at a later date. The data we used to reach that conclusion is subject to change at a later date. The conclusion you just read is subject to change at a later date. D’oh… Never mind.

Andrew ♫

Scientists must always struggle, daily and even every hour, to remain relatively free of bias. Trust me, I know this feeling. Hansen does not appear to even try to guard himself against it, and because of that lack of diligence, I believe is at high risk of biasing his own research.

My follow-up about any analysis is this: Does it sound like good judgement to say the recorded past temp is not good enough to use by itself, but it is good enough to stack adjustments on? That it’s wrong to use but right enough to use?

It would seem to me that you would have to know what the temp is supposed to be before you can do any reliable adjustment for your analysis.

Andrew

Hansen’s payola has been widely reported. Google “David foundation, Hansen” to start. Or “Hansen, Gore”. Or check this out:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3671

It’s interesting that of the thousands upon thousands of public servants being paid solely by taxpayers, this particular individual gets so much outside loot — and only from organizations with a very heavy, one-sided, pro-AGW agenda.

Big money like that is a corrupting influence; that’s its unstated purpose. It’s like a local hood paying off the beat cop on the side. Justice takes a back seat. Every time Hansen has taken a big chunk of cash he has ratcheted up his wild-eyed AGW scenarios. That should tell you all you need to know about what’s going on.

If Hansen hands that cash to the U.S. Treasury or to charity, I’ll retract. But Hansen appears to be bought and paid for by outside interests. Where does that leave honest science? Where does that leave the taxpaying public?

Yes, I do see your point, and agree that a casual observer is unlikely to realise that the temperature analysis has been subject to processing. Of course, this is true of all the analyses, not just GISS. The satellites don’t even directly measure temperature in the first place, and the fact that RSS, UAH and others come up with different figures from the same input data shows us that there is no ‘absolute truth’ to be had. The satellite records are themselves subject to ongoing corrections, of course. Why are many people so concerned with USHCN/GISS corrections and not with those others, I wonder? The sum total of corrections to the global analysis does not seem to me to be of great consequence in terms of how it affects our judgment as to what to do, if anything (that’s JMV, of course, and I realise that others will disagree). Anthony’s link above is, of course, to the US analysis. Either way, it’s hardly evidence of deception, since the adjustments are openly explained in Hansen’s papers. I think we may have to agree to differ as to whether or not it offers us a more realisitic view of the true history of actual mean temperatures, as opposed to the history of recorded observations. :-)

Smokey,

Hansen has accepted at least three quarters of a million dollars [that we know about] from entities with a strong global warming/AGW agenda

Do you mean in terms of personal remuneration? Do you have links in respect of that? I certainly didn’t know of it.

while the Best Science site is run on a pretty much voluntary basis.

Who are you gonna believe?

Well, I certainly don’t believe something because it’s voluntarily funded. There’s all sorts of stuff on the internet of that kind that I don’t believe! Actually, I know nothing of however Anthony Watts makes a living and think that’s none of my business. I try to assess and check out what I read regardless of such knowledge.

There isn’t much difference between believing what someone on the green payroll says, and believing what tobacco company front groups say. They are equally credible.

So therefore you don’t think that Fred Singer, for example, is credible? Personally I think it’s best to look at the science rather than making presumptions of that kind (I actually don’t think Singer is credible, but that’s because of what he has said rather than because of his associations with tobacco).

James Hansen is bought and paid for. He has endorsed lawbreaking to achieve his ends, therefore he is unethical; QED.

If you mean his testimony in respect of the Kingsnorth Six then no, he has not endorsed lawbreaking. They were found not guilty, and therefore did not break the law. You may think they should have been found guilty, but a UK jury decided otherwise. To suggest that justifies “the presumption that he has deliberately corrupted GISS” only explains your personal attitude.

Analogy: I got paid $20 instead of the $25 a week I’m supposed to get, from 1970-1990. Payroll discovered the mistake yesterday and I got retro paid and am getting the correct weekly salary *now*.

Still doesn’t change the fact that I got paid $20 instead of $25 all that time. If someone said I got paid $25 a week from 1970-1990 they would be wrong. They could say I was *supposed* to get $25 from 1970-1990.

Andrew ♫

You can do whatever analysis you want and change whatever numbers you want in your analysis. As long as everyone knows that what you have is not the history but the analysis. Is that how it is perceived by everyone? Do the purveyors of the analysis disclose that and make sure everyone knows it? Or are you trying to say that analysis and history are the same thing? You may have a different analysis tomorrow or next week in light of new information. Do you see what I’m saying?

Andrew ♫

What I do not share with many commentators here is the ready presumption that inaccuracies and adjustments are evidence of human bias in favour of showing a warming climate.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote to a naive prince: “Men are evil, unless compelled to be good.”

Who can compel James Hansen to be honest? Hansen has accepted at least three quarters of a million dollars [that we know about] from entities with a strong global warming/AGW agenda — while the Best Science site is run on a pretty much voluntary basis.

Who are you gonna believe?

There isn’t much difference between believing what someone on the green payroll says, and believing what tobacco company front groups say. They are equally credible.

Finally, I would like to hear an explanation of why it is A-OK for someone in Hansen’s taxpayer-paid job [a job which allows him to arbitrarily "adjust," "homogenize" and otherwise alter past climate data], to accept huge amounts of cash from groups that want him to push their agenda.

James Hansen is bought and paid for. He has endorsed lawbreaking to achieve his ends, therefore he is unethical; QED. So the presumption that he has deliberately corrupted GISS is warranted, IMHO.

I agree that original records should not be destroyed or overwritten, but they have not been. GISS (and others) present an analysis of those records that remain exisiting.

If your financial institution discovered an error from the past, would they not correct it in their analysis (my experience suggests that if I have been overpaid I don’t stay overpaid once the error is discovered!)?

Biased temperature readings are not the history of temperature but the history of recording error. It seems to me that, by your argument, UAH should still be reporting their faulty pre-2005 data, even though it’s known to be wrong.

In all fields there will be records from the past that are either unintentionally or intentionally biased. If we want to get closer to the truth then our analysis must take account of any known biases, in my view at least. :-)

I work for financial institutions for my day job, and we document everything within reason that is job related. The documentation has to reflect the history, so we can continue to learn from it, for one reason. If you change it, there is nothing for you to help you remember what actually happened. If a mistake is made, or something is wrong, the good and bad are all recorded and we go correctly from there. If I ever went back and tried to change the history of what happened to my company, I would be fired, not to mention my personal relationship with the people that run the places would be destroyed. They would consider it a betrayal.

Andrew ♫

I am not asserting the absolute accuracy of the methodology, though I would probably go along with your word ‘representative’. Clearly there is error in the process, though whether or not that exceeds the GISS error bands I do not know.

I am well aware there are examples of poorly sited sensors, and I am sure that you report on microclimate biases that introduce spurious cooling as well as those that introduce spurious warming, such as instances of sensors influenced by tree canopy. I understand from R.P. Sr’s papers that the influence of asphalt is seasonal – cooling in winter, warming in summer. The quantification of that is tricky enough, let alone a total quantification of all biases. I do think that the GISS methodology seeks to dilute the influence of anomalous readings, but whether that is effective or not is a reasonable line of enquiry.

I look forward to a time when there are more satellites in space which have been designed specifically to assess our climate. They will doubtless have their own teething problems and systemic errors, but the closer we get to fuller and more accurate information the better.

So, I wholly agree that there is evidence of inaccuracy in the record. I don’t find that very surprising, really, but I agree that work should continue in the direction of improvement. What I do not share with many commentators here is the ready presumption that inaccuracies and adjustments are evidence of human bias in favour of showing a warming climate. I am not aware of any specific evidence of that, though it seems to be established in the minds of many as if it were a matter of fact. That, it seems to me, is more a matter of ‘faith’ than anything I have said. My view is that we should not presume cause unless it is evidenced, and that, I suggest, is a sceptical stance.

I understand but disagree with many of your points, particularly that the GISS adjustments are correctly applied.

There have been several examples where both GISS and NCDC (USHCN) data shows that completely missed the mark in corrections of stations moves, UHI, and micosite biases. For example:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/17/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/

The GISS UHI methodology of counting nightlights around stations is now terribly out of date, since (as far as I am aware) the last DMSP sat image they used for the purpose was done in 1995. Now 13 years out of date.

in some cases, stations that have no reason whatsoever to be adjusted by the nightlights method, are in fact being adjusted by GISS:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/18/cedarville-sausage/

Also both NCDC and GISS datasets have no adjustment for long period biases, such as urban creep, deforestation, etc., nor do they have a method for detecting it.

Finally, it has been shown by NCDC’s own graph, that their sum of adjustments for TOBS, FILNET, SHAP, and the miniscule UHI, impart only a sum positive bias to the record.

I find your faith in the methodology being representative as puzzling also.

Aug. 11, 2008: Nick Barnes and staff at Ravenbrook Limited have generously offered to reprogram the GISTEMP analysis using Python only, to make it clearer to a general audience. In the process, they have discovered in the routine that converts USHCN data from hundredths of °F to tenths of °C an unintended dropping of the hundredths of °F before the conversion and rounding to the nearest tenth of °C. This did not significantly change any results since the final rounding dominated the unintended truncation. The corrected code has been used for the current update and is now part of the publicly available source.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/

Just a question.

That is:

what do you think about this before and after graph showing two GISS temperature dataset releases that have been made public, differing only by date:

Lets hear what you think about it.

Firstly I think it’s not the subject of this thread and, as I have suggested to Smokey above, referencing other beefs with GISS is indicative of confirmation bias at work, IMV.

However, since you ask what I think -

1. I am unclear as to whether you are concerned about the GISS process only or about the USHCN data with which they work. I’ll presume you are considering the whole ‘package’, though I think it relevant to recognise different responsibilities.

2. As you are well aware, the most significant adjustments were described in Hansen et al. 2001: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html. In biref, they encompassed USHCN adjustments for time of observation bias, station history, instrumentation changes and urban warming. The main difference between USHCN and GISS adjustments was GISS’s greater negative correction for urban bias (about -0.15°C over 100 years, compared with a USHCN urban adjustment of -0.06°C).

3. You ask if I think it’s OK to change the data from the past. I certainly do. For example, if the influence of UHI can be analysed, should it not be adjusted for? If a station has a warming bias because of its location, should that not be adjusted? Or if time of observation has systematically changed from afternoon to morning, then how can we assess a meaningful view of temperature change over time without adjusting for that?

Given that the whole thrust of your surface stations project is to examine the extent to which temperature readings are uncorrupted by spurious influences I find your questions here rather puzzling. The USHCN (GISS) adjustments have been done in order to remove spurious biases. I think that is entirely proper and, yes, I would expect exactly the same from a medical study, safety test or financial record (to give you an example of the last, I would expect the performance of financial products to be assessable in the context of inflation adjustment).

If it were to be recognised that UHI effects have been underestimated for the last thirty years, say, would you object to those temperature records being adjusted downwards to give us an unbiased assessment of the situation?

It was, of course, an incorrectly computed time of observation bias (satellite drift) that had corrupted the UAH records up to 2005. Did you object to Christy & Spencer recognising their error when it was pointed out to them and thereafter changing their own past data?

Here at home, about 10 miles from the Concord weather station, I reached only -17.5F. I’m in a valley where cold air pools on clear calm nights, but trees, and buildings block some sky exposure.

The Concord station is at small airport (no regular commercial traffic) on a flat (duh!) plain near the Merrimack river valley. Under really good radiational cooling they usually get colder than I do.

My last 48 hours of data are at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wx/current.htm

Anyway, what kind of “missing values” in 1900 are being calculated from averages which include data from 2008? Are we talking of specific days in specific stations, or monthly averages of specific stations, or monthly averages of entire regions, or global monthly averages? Obviously all of them will be changed, but where does the problem start?

There was a post several months ago detailing how USHCN adjustments are made, and IIRCC, Steve McIntyre made some forays into seeing how many datapoints are missing.

I didn’t find the link I wanted, but http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/ is informative.

Too late for more digging.

Temp near Concord, NH: -11.2°F. Cold, and 3rd coldest in my five years of
detailed records:

mysql> select dt, hi_temp, lo_temp from daily where lo_temp <= -10;
+————+———+———+
| dt | hi_temp | lo_temp |
+————+———+———+
| 2004-01-10 | 7.2 | -11.0 |
| 2004-01-14 | 0.9 | -13.5 |
| 2004-01-16 | 10.4 | -11.0 |
| 2005-01-22 | 10.2 | -13.0 |
+————+———+———+

Like MattN noted, "If we get any more global warming, we’ll all freeze to death!"

So I believe that Hansen may have been a resident of Haight-Ashbury.

That would explain the combover.

Mr. Talbot says above — “You are not presenting a case in a court of law, ‘in camera’ before a judge. You are publishing your views on your own public web site.”

This is what I’d been thinking; mostly I was concerned about the PR aspect of all of this. It smacks of nitpicking so as to go after Dr. Hansen. It’s just not YOU. This isn’t the sort of mistake you make.

Now while I wholeheartedly agree that Hansen OUGHT to be gone after, I’d much rather see him in a wrestling smackdown (complete with folding chair blows) for things like changing past temps or encouraging criminals.

Going after him for what appears as an instrumental or algorithmic artifact is like ignoring the egregious stuff and settling for gossip about him and his intern.

And make no mistake, in the mile high view this can (and will) be seen as going after Dr. Hansen. A cheap shot. Even if that wasn’t the intent. You know that Tamino et al are going to eat this up, and this can damage hard won credibility.

That’s my view. I’ll shut up now. Thanks for listening. :-)