NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history

28 06 2009

Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP Linear Trends: Before and After

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and here’s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.

http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif

It is based on the John Daly archived data:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006

and the current Contiguous U.S. surface temperature anomaly data from GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

In their presentations, most people have been concerned with which decade had the highest U.S. surface temperature anomaly: the 1940s or the 1990s. But I couldn’t recall having ever seen a trend comparison, so I snipped off the last 9 years from current data and let EXCEL plot the trends:

Read the rest of this entry »





UK’s Met Office loses 25% of its funding

28 06 2009

It appears that all is not well with the idea of “climate forecasting” as the Ministry of Defence pulls the financial rug out from under the Met Office climate program. Now how will they pay for the electricity to run “deep black”, the 1.2 megawatt supercomputer they just purchased?

Phil Jones may have drain the moat and sell access to his climate data lists and code to pay the bills.

From the Register, UK

Weather soothsayers lose £4.3m

By Austin Modine

Story excerpts:

The Met Office, home of UK weather soothsaying, is getting its climate research budget chopped by a quarter after the Ministry of Defence ended financial support to focus on “current operations.” Read the rest of this entry »





An Australian look at USHCN: 20th century trend is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the “corrections”

28 06 2009
click for larger image

click for larger image

From environmentalist Jennifer Marohasy’s blog in Australia, please pay her a visit here – Anthony

There has been criticism of the potential for official weather stations in the USA to record artificially high temperatures because of the changing environments in which they exist, for example, new asphalt, new building or new air conditioning outlets.   Meteorologist, Anthony Watts, has documented evidence of the problem and Canadian academic, Ross McKitrick, has attempted to calculate just how artificially elevated temperatures might be as a consequence.

A reader of this blog, Michael Hammer, recently studied the official data from the US official weather stations and in particular how it is adjusted after it has been collected.   Mr Hammer concludes that the temperature rise profile claimed by the US government is largely if not entirely an artefact of the adjustments applied after the raw data is collected from the weather stations.

Does the US Temperature Record Support Global Warming?
By Michael Hammer

IN the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects, analyses and publishes temperature data for the United States.   As part of the analysis process, NOAA applies several adjustments to the raw data.

If we consider, the above graph, which shows, their plot of the raw data  (dark pink) and the adjusted data (pale pink), it is obvious that the adjustments have little impact on data from early in the 20th century but adjust later temperature readings upwards by an increasing amount.  This means that the adjustments will create an apparent warming trend over the 20th century.  [Click on the above chart for a better larger view, this chart can also be viewed at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html .]

NOAA state that they adjust the raw data for five factors.  The magnitude of the adjustments are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.  Form of individual corrections applied by NOAA. The black line is the adjustment for time of observation.  The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used.  The yellow line is for changes in station siting. The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records. The purple line is for UHI effects (this correction is now removed).  [Click on the chart for a better larger view or visit the same website as for Figure 1.] Read the rest of this entry »