Jo Nova has more from Frank Lansner on what older records, this time from weather balloons, tell us about recent adjustments to the temperature record. WUWT readers may recall Rewriting the decline where the graph from National Geographic below raises some questions about temperature graphs today.
Above: Matthews 1976, National Geographic, Temperatures 1880-1976
Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate emails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the measured temperatures. But Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs and that measured temperature did decline from 1960 onwards, sharply. But in the GISS version of that time-period, temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer.
The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from rabocore data.
Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.
You can see how similar the data from both methods is:
So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.
The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data: Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper).
What’s thought provoking is that the raobcore data above is for 30N-30S, covering all the tropics on both sides of the equator, and yet still shows the decline. That begs the question of whether the Southern Hemisphere data has been adjusted too. It would be good to see the raobcore sets further up towards the arctic. It would also be good to look at the Southern Hemisphere. Where are the data sets and peer reviewed papers on temperature from 1965 to 1980? I’d like to follow that up.
Three decades of adjustments
When did the “funny business” begin? By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs which were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and then 2007 further reduced the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.
(Click to see a larger image).
Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960’s to 1970’s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 rising (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).
Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s
And in 1974, there was the fore-runner of the “It’s worse than we thought” message.
…
Frank has more information and details on his blog Hide the decline.
If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s”
Rogue decimal point?
Wonder what the latest excuse will be? Maybe the photos need to be adjusted?
“Who are you gonna trust? Me or your own eyes?”
Great work!
Thanks for the digging into other temperature data sets.
I hope other people will get to see this data and begin to see more clearly the manipulations that are being done in the name of science.
Great job!
Hansen seems to be the source of trouble. I am sure he will one day get to explain why he cheats. Right now, he hides from hearings and tough interviews. Have patience. His day will come. The Head chef cooks the numbers and wrote the recipes. His cook book will be written.
Massey coal or Peabody Coal can be the sue Chefs. I am sure this give Romm indigestion.
OT
Anthony….you might find this enteresting….Climate education.
http://www.pasco.com/earth/atmosphere/index.cfm
Remember the days when National Geographic was readable and GISS wasn’t the little kingdom existing solely to “verify” the hallucinations of James Hansen? Seems like an eternity ago …
Amazing, particular in view of the satellite data / weather balloon data “convergence problem”
You’d have to suspect there are other useful instrumental sources tucked away, waiting to come to be re-examined.
“If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.”
Great stuff!
Just confirms what we always deep down knew, having lived through the period, the temperatures I experienced were not as GISS would have it.
This is delicious, vindication for the sceptics who knew we were being fed a crock.
Good work Mr. Lansner.
Sounds like another “nail in the AGW coffin”. I’m betting recent “hottest years on record” they keep harping about are just that–hottest on RECORD, not at the THERMOMETER.
I was a new instructor at the University of Idaho in 1974. Your “word art” image of the U.S. Nat. Sci. Board, 1974 message about the cooling is the sort of thing I remember. I taught introductory physical geography and that includes sections on the atmosphere, world climates, and atmospheric processes. I used two days (if I recall correctly) to discuss the impending cold period that everyone seem sure of. My main points were (a) what the records at the time showed, and (b) using historical documents, that cold periods of Earth’s history were known for difficult times for human societies.
Two names come to mind – Lamb and Bryson – as source material for some of the ideas. Somewhere I might still have a folder (the paper type) full of clippings and documents. As regards to what the Earth is up to, I think we have a lot more data now but not a lot more insight.
Hansen, you’ve got a lot of splainin’ to do!
Central Europe record composed from 2 up to 14 stations, covering eastern half of Slovakia and bits of Poland, Ukraine and Hungary:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_20-22.5E_47.5-50N_n_mean1.png
80ties are colder than beginning of 20th century. Quite similar to Armagh or CET record.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/215098/cetarmagh.jpg
http://climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
Looks that for NH, the hidden tree ring decline has been still overemphasized, but not that off.
Ian McLeod (09:49:39) :
Hansen, you’ve got a lot of splainin’ to do!
————————————
Fat chance !!!!!!!!!
Let the adjustment apologists now enter the arena.
I will never forget that picture I saw when I was 7 years old….
of a submarine surfaced at the North Pole in 1959.
It was only thanks to some posters here that I was able to understand why that sub was in open waters in March, surrounded by ice in the distance.
Looks like detrended 20th century NH record would fit those old charts quite well:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/detrend:0.8/from:1900
Don’t count on Hansen doing a mea culpa. Like politicians, activists rarely admit they are wrong. If Hansen is accused of cheating or misrepresenting the data or other inappropriate activity , he will be defended vigorously. If Hansen is found to have done wrong, the whole thing will be swept under the rug and all his past supporters will pretend he and his work never existed.
Anecdotal Evidence for the Decline:
I remember reading an article in the Reader’s Digest in the late 40’s or early 50’s, raising the alarm that the nation’s food supply might be in danger. Why? Because nearly all our corn then came from hybrids engineered during the excessively warm period two or three decades earlier. As climate returned to normal [cooling!], corn engineered to grow in hot weather would suffer, and the stocks of older corn had been discarded.
As a retired physician/scientist I have been sceptical of AGW for several years for two main reasons. First has been the lack of a sound Popperian approach (hypotheses cannot be proven, only disproven or falsified) to the problem of rising temperatures. Second has been the lack of evidence that atmospheric CO2 per se is the primary driver of climate temperature. (Correlation NEVER proves causation but lack of correlation disproves causation).
Now that the primary data themselves (reported temperatures) have been so discredited It seems necessary to declare that AGW is a figment of someone’s imagination.
Retsci
And what was the crap they were trying to use after Willis posted about Darwin Zero? That the adjustments did not affect the trend? Seems like that is pretty good evidence that, yes, it did affect the trend.
Compared to Jimmie Hansen, Bernie Madoff was a rank amateur. Madoff suckered a bunch of people with money to invest; Hansen’s suckered the entire planet.
infamita.
Henry chance (09:22:21) : …sue Chefs….”
Groan.
I posted this comment today on Frank’s very good website;
” I do have a sense of Deja Vu, because as someone who primarily looks at this from a historic aspect I had believed (wrongly) that everyone was by now aware of the warming period in the 1920’s/1930’s and the subsequent decline you have highlighted here. No matter how often people like you or me make reference to it then the past becomes forgotten (by warmists) and new hysteria breaks out!
Having just finished re reading Hubert Lambs book ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ it is obvious that he took this cooling period as completely factual and made many references to it. He wrote that book in 1982 so it covers up to the same period you identify.
He revised the book in 1994 and obviously remained sceptical of mans impact (but was pleased at greater environmental awareness)
This ‘adjustment’ has other consequences of course. I have previously written of the cooler 1970’s which led to a high level of arctic sea ice which coincided with the advent of satellite measurements in 1979. The subsequent ice decline is therefore from a peak and has reverted to a level seen in the 1930’s and 1850’s amongst many other periods. In other words it is not ‘unprecedented.’
Looking at the current record of events this cold period and extensive ice has largely disappeared, so the context to subsequent ice melt is missing
Tonyb
Is there an online source for the three ’80, ’87, ’07 charts?