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:
http://i44.tinypic.com/295sp37.gif
Before the post-1999 GISS adjustments to the Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data, the linear trend for the period of 1880 to 1999 was 0.035 deg C/decade. After the adjustments, the linear trend rose to 0.044 deg C/decade.
Thanks to Anthony Watts who provided the link to the older GISTEMP data archived at John Daly’s website in his post here:
NOTE: Bob, The credit really should go to Michael Hammer, who wrote that post, but I’m happy to have a role as facilitator. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like about 1970 is the break point. Before then, they “corrected” everything down and since then everything has been up. Interesting.
How much do you get from your ads? How many times do I need to visit your green advertisers to get you 20 bucks.
They’ll be getting plenty of money from me through my taxes. I’d like to help them help you pay your bills.
REPLY: I don’t know what each click brings, it varies widely, some might be a nickel, others maybe 50 cents. Multiple clicks on the same day, same ad, only count for one hit. You have to spread it around amongst different stories, different ads for it to have more than a single click impact. – Anthony
Winston Smith would find the work GISS is up to double plus good.
“who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
“War is Peace,”
“Freedom is Slavery,”
“Ignorance is Strength
DoctorJJ: You wrote, “Looks like about 1970 is the break point. Before then, they ‘corrected’ everything down and since then everything has been up. Interesting.”
Aren’t there two pivot points? One around 1964 and the other about 1900? Note how the change in the data before 1900 opposes the change after.
It’s interesting that in order to correct for UHI, older temps (which should be less subject to the phenomena) are “corrected” down, while current data (which would be the most susceptible, is “corrected” up.
Intriguing.
Ah yes, bend the current temperature upward. See, now if you extend the graph it looks like we are on the upward curve of the line instead of just before it.
If someone sold you a stock that tanked, and the SEC discovered evidence of ‘adjustments’ like this, that person would be in the slammer for a good while. It’s called fraud in business, and ‘estimation’ in science.
These guys have been caught at this type of shenanigans over and over, by Anthony and Steve Mcintyre at CA. I know you frown on words like fraud, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ……….
Sorry, but there simply is NO OTHER WORD … and I am quite frankly tired of the GISS and this kind of crap. Everyone in this country who “thinks” there is AGW needs to be made painfully aware of these kinds of things. Most people simply have no clue what is going on, and thus will accept anything presented to them with the NASA logo.
Shame, shame, shame … it’s all going to catch up to them in the end though!
Bob Tisdale,
You’re right. Looks like most everything before 1900 is corrected up. If we’re going all conspiracy here, I’m not sure what purpose that would serve, unless it’s to minimize the “warming” that occurred in the period ~1880-1900, which obviously couldn’t have happened since we weren’t dumping CO2 into the atmosphere back then.
REPLY: Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony
REPLY: Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony
Incompetence of this sort would land you in jail if we were talking about compiling financial statements, it is gross negligence. It is precisely this sort of thing that makes people think conspiracy, though. If this were a court of law, it would be pretty easy to sell a case of fraudulent behavior, although I do tend to agree that incompetence works just fine. The result of the negligence is the same whether you wish to believe it is intentional or not, which is the unfortunate part.
“Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony”
My guess is that it’s a combination of (1) incompetence; and (2) cognitive bias. Most humans, knowing what result they want to get, will end up having their judgment a bit skewed.
The folks behind GISS know that they are supposed to get a warming trend.
My opinion only.
“REPLY: Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony”
Like I say, “If we’re going all conspiracy here…”
Although, after all the other incidents that you have uncovered, with ALL of them tending towards warming, it does make you wonder.
More amusing ridiculae from the Register UK: Ecopocalypse causes giant fish ears — First Vulcans, then Obama, now les poissons
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/enlarged_otoliths/
Squidly (19:16:37) :
“Most people simply have no clue what is going on, and thus will accept anything presented to them with the NASA logo.”
And therein lies the problem! The big lie is working. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to sift through the unlimited data available and consequently have to accept the mainstream media with its incessant message of global warming/climate change presented in little sound bites, ad nauseum. I’ve been watching this closely for over 15 years and the message never changes: global warming/climate change is real. Period! The masses have accepted this and only have doubts about the degree of impact. Sanity will not return until the majority figures out that they are being screwed and that’s going to take the help of the MSM. I really fear for my grandchildren’s future.
danbo (18:32:04) :
Don’t stop clicking on the ads those groups have usually a petition page where you suppose to send a form letter to your local politician just use that and change the content to what you think about GW wind power and so on.
Just send one from the Forestethics group outlining instead of heating our houses with dirty tar-sand oil we could burn wood instead see what that does to the forest 🙂
brazil84 (19:38:47) :
The folks behind GISS know that they are supposed to get a warming trend.
The ‘incompetence’ feeds into the models which continue to predict the warming trend which feedbacks positively into the models which continue to predict the warming trend which feedbacks positively into the models …. and so on….
I discussed these issues a couple of years ago when I was looking at GISS. See for example http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891
[ not going to allow that label to be applied to GISS without proof – Anthony]
I’d be outraged, except I’ve seen this before. By the way, the reason they are bringing up the oldest temperatures is an attempt to smooth climate. Most people I know are completely unaware that there ever was something called the “little ice age”. That little dip in temperature happens to be an inconvenient truth, but those in control of the data can just sweep it away (just like the Medieval Climate Optimum which Wikipedia is now claiming only affected a small part of the world).
And again, I’d be laughing a LOT at this blatant manipulation except that so much is at stake. And after Friday, I’m genuinely concerned that the inmates are about to be handed the keys to the asylum, AND the bank next door to it.
Hunter (18:42:10) , very troubling but I ‘m afraid its now Romm 101 for you!
Who can we complain to?
My own Congressman voted “no” on the tax-and-trade bill, (as did all the GA repubbies) but how effective is a single Republican’s voice when the democrats are ramming lies down through the media?
The ABCNNBSBS media are campaigning this way to support the taxes and economic destruction, refusing to let contrary voices be heard. So how do you break through the voices on the so-called “science” channels as well – PBS, Discover, National Geographic, History – when they push the same propaganda?
Steve, you are but a lonely voice in the wilderness. GISS/NASA has thew ear of the ruling party in DC. Look at the carbon bill just passed in the House.
Jim Norvell
It looks like the pre-1970 temperature variability is dampened by the corrections but the post-1970 temperatures seem to be enhanced. This heightens the apparent magnitude of the recent decadal warming and displays two CAGW tenets: unprecedented warming and a stable earlier climate (I know that usually means the MWP and LIA, but 20th C temps have been slightly smoothed here too).
I don’t share the pessimism of those who suggest that the little people are persuaded by the MSM soundbites. Opinion polls on both sides of the Atlantic and downunder suggest that a clear-ish majority of the little people still believe Chicken Licken to be a children’s story not a scientific fact.
Every day more and more little people are doing their own investigations into the AGW hypothesis. We should not be surprised that the degree of scepticism increases as more learn of the last decade’s relative chilliness and read of warmists arguing that cooling is a consequence of warming. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you try to dress it up. I remain confident that, as we little people are exposed to more nonsense we will conclude that cooling actually means cooling and that cooling is the opposite of warming rather than a consequence of it.
The warmists stole a march by getting their potty hypothesis out first and proclaiming it to be settled science. It is a long slog to counter the advantage they gained for themselves, yet they are now behind in the opinion polls so things seem to be moving in the right direction.
And as for whether the Giss wobble is a fraud, a conditioned response to fixed opinions, a genuine attempt to seek the truth or the result of incompetence, it really doesn’t matter. Either their new truth is the truth or it is not, either it is accurate or it is inaccurate; examination and analysis will provide the answer. The motive behind what they have done does not tell us whether their new truth is correct or incorrect in fact.
Real incompetence would lead to ‘adjustments’ in both directions. I have been following the global warming debate for 20 years and the only ‘adjustments’ that are ever made to the data increase the apparent human role in global warming.
That’s not incompetence. That is an agenda!