By Steve Goddard
From reading the press and some blogs, one would think that the hot week in early July on the middle Atlantic seaboard was a rare or unprecedented event. Some believe that the weather used to be perfect before the invention of the soccer mom.
One of my favorite stories growing up was told by my New York relatives. The reason why movie matinées became very popular during the 1930s was because movie theatres were the only place that was air conditioned. People would go to the theatre just to get out of the oppressive heat. I tend to trust historical accounts from reliable sources, but for those who want data – keep reading.
Prior to being corrupted adjusted in the year 2000, this is what the GISS US temperature graph looked like.
The 1930s was by far the hottest decade. After being “adjusted” in the year 2000, it magically changed shape. The 1990s became much warmer. 1998 added almost half a degree – ex post facto.
The video below shows (in reverse) how the graph was rotated in the year 2000. Older temperatures became colder, and newer temperatures became warmer.
Rewriting history is not a good approach to science. It was very hot during the 1930s, as anyone who lived through it can tell you. Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please can anyone tell me why I have just read an article in the Telegraph in the UK stating that 2010 is on course to be the warmist year on record?
It was the coldest start to the year in the Northern hemisphere for 30 years and here in the UK we had one of the coldest month of May.
This article seems to strengthen the argument that data is now so corrupted that it almost pointless using it. Surely the information is somewhere and the science can get back to some sane research.
From the post: “People would go to the theatre just to get out of the oppressive heat.”
People still do, me included. I’m green (more likely, just cheap): I turn the temp up on my air conditioner and go to the movies or hit the malls just so I’m staying cool on someone else’s dime.
You’ll see even more of that as energy costs go up.
Why does this not surprise me at all?
Anyway to adjust and change the data to make it hotter today is to keep the funding in place for researchers so government policies can go through with their terrible future plans.
Keep up the good work Steve!
No wonder Hansen’s always banging on about 6°.
So then, according to GISS, the end result of Global Warming is that we all get to meet Kevin Bacon?
Your statement that the adjustment was magical or somehow designed to give a certain result is without basis. If you think the adjustments where wrong you need to present your analysis of the methods used. You do not give a source for the second graph. I think it is from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
The main difference is that the second graph covers a longer period of time. As for the adjustments they are expanded there as well:
“What’s New
Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.
Nov. 14, 2009: USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.
Sep. 11, 2009: NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on Sept. 9 of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning Sept. 11 the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set. ”
If you disagree, explain why. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it is magic. And just because you won’t provide references does not mean you will not be exposed.
BTW: The first image in your post is from here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Mike
As states in the article, 1998 increased by about half a degree after the adjustment. Look closer at the graph, and in particular watch the video again. There is no question that older temperatures became cooler and newer temperatures became warmer.
My grandfather, who lived in Wisconsin, used to tell me that 1936 was the hottest year he ever saw – a whole stretch of days over 100 degrees, and this in central Wisconsin! He always called it “the year all the Flies died!” on account of the heat.
Mike
Do you think it is a coincidence that Hansen has devoted his life’s work towards proving global warming, and that the adjustments always move towards support of that idea?
Silly me. I did not submit my thoughts to proper authorities for approval before my previous comment.
I now see the error of my ways: the denialist video shows the process in reverse, in order to nullify the effects of Global Warming.
The six degrees actually separates. So I have been granted by the authorites to realize that indeed, it is due to Global Warming that all of us do not know Kevin Bacon firsthand.
Yet another calamity! Who will save?
So the temperatures were adjusted in 2000? Crikey, that’s ten years ago! Surely it’s time to adjust them again, isn’t it? Then we’ll have the proof that we’re burning up.
As I point out in my recent Examiner.com article:
The “science” underlying greenhouse warming alarmism increasingly is being exposed as pure fantasy — a house of cards built on manipulated climate models supporting pre-ordained conclusions based on cherry-picked land-based temperature data that has been homogenized, interpolated and adjusted to produce, without fail, a politically correct increase in planetary warming.
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-
Examiner~y2010m7d22-Global-warming-alarmists-in-full-retreat-lash-out-at-skeptics
RE: “Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.”
That ‘someday’ will probably require a long time for a real change of attitude there. Perhaps that will happen after the real consequences of this folly become generally known. I still recall seeing an excited buzz of ‘right-on’ enthusiasm when the academy award for Vice President Gore’s film was announced.
We are just about at the right time for a film with a title like “The Steve McIntyre Story,” but I do not expect such a film anytime soon except perhaps as a hatchet job.
See
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
Mike says:
July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am
You are obviously new to this blog. The reasons for the complaints about the adjustments and the methodology used have been very well documented and discussed over the course of the last several years. I don’t have the time to compile all of it for you right now, but I’m sure others will fill in the gap.
I will leave with this parting question for you, though. Why is it that all of Hansen’s adjustments tend to make the pre-1970s temps colder and post-1970s temps warmer?
Mike — you may be right (and then again …)
But how can we really tell when all climate research is based on anomalies? All I can tell from the graphs is that in the first one the 30s showed the greatest anomaly (as compared with what?) and in the second one they don’t. They tell me nothing about the actual temperatures and they leave me (and others) with the distinct impression that “climate scientists” can produce whatever figures best suit their argument by continually adjusting their base, the period they are measuring, their 5-,10-, or any other-year means, and for all I know the colour of their socks.
I have asked the question before: What is the earth’s actual temperature today? What is its “correct” temperature? Since even Hansen has admitted that temperature is not a useful metric what are we all arguing about? And why are we threatening to spend trillions of taxpayers’ dollars and “bomb us all back to the stone age” on the basis of figures that make whatever sense you care to make of them, which probably in the final analysis means ‘none at all’?
I don’t know whether climate science is a con because I’m not a scientist; I do know that what the climate scientists do with figures bears more than a passing resemblance to the old street con-trick called ‘Find the Lady’!
This blink graph shows it better.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
Mike
It doesn’t matter how much BS you throw at it altering historical data is a criminal scientific act.
The easiest way to prove the adjustment would be to use actual temperature
rather than ‘anomalies’ or derivatives. Increasingly, the use of derivative information serves merely to confuse. And as this thread discusses, merely to prove the preordained supposition. It is intentional, and in the real sense, ultimately meaningless. The entire world has been swept into a trap wherein actual data is expendable.
As for the revision, it too is a con job, plain and simple. Whether a different and longer base line is utilized as a reader here maintains, or if the information was adjusted without explanation, the intent is to create the impression that the planet is warmer now than it was in the 1930s, early 40s. And according to comparable thermometer readings it was not. Not in the Continental America, not in Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Camada, or Europe, including Scandinavia .
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Is that it?
Northern Latitutes up 1.2 C in 110 years.
Low Latititudes up 0.6 C in 110 years.
Southern Latitudes up 0.8 C in 110 years.
Seriously, that’s the warming we’ve seen? And this is supposed to be a crisis? Even if I accept that Hansen’s adjustments are all perfectly reasonable, that is not enough warming for me to worry about. Is this a joke? Haha, very funny. You had me going for while…
stevengoddard says:
July 23, 2010 at 6:20 am
Mike
Do you think it is a coincidence that Hansen has devoted his life’s work towards proving global warming, and that the adjustments always move towards support of that idea?
————————————————————————————–
Steven, and what is it you are doing?
Mike writes:
“Your statement that the adjustment was magical or somehow designed to give a certain result is without basis. If you think the adjustments where wrong you need to present your analysis of the methods used.”
I don’t think the word “adjustment” means what you think it means. When someone does an adjustment, he is CHANGING something. When there is a CHANGE in something that several people had used in common for some time, the people who did not make the change will require an explanation of the change. So, now do you understand the meaning of “adjustment?” You invert the meaning of the word, attempting to place the burden of explanation on the people who are asking that the adjustment be explained. If you know the explanation, why don’t you give it to us?
However, you face another problem. As a long time follower of so-called climate science, I can assure you that in all the adjustments made by climate scientists, all of them are in accordance with climate change hysteria. Why is that?
stevengoddard says:
July 23, 2010 at 6:17 am
Mike
As states in the article, 1998 increased by about half a degree after the adjustment. Look closer at the graph, and in particular watch the video again. There is no question that older temperatures became cooler and newer temperatures became warmer.
————————————————————————————
Graphs may be adjusted for sound reasons, do you have proof that it was not? Making assumptions is skating on thin ice.
Mike
The “What’s New” points you quote… I’m sure that you aren’t suggesting that satellites can now look back in time to measure nightlights during the 1930s.