Is Hansen’s Recent Temperature Data Consistent?

By Steve Goddard

Dr. John Christy recently wrote an excellent piece “Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful?” which highlighted how poorly Dr. Hansen’s past predictions are doing.

This post raises questions about GISS claims of record 2010 temperatures. The most recent GISS graph below shows nearly constant warming from 1965 to the present, with 2010 almost 0.1°C warmer than the actual warmest year of 1998.

HadCrut disagrees. They show temperatures flat over the past decade. and 2010 about 0.1°C cooler than the warmest year 1998.

Looking more closely, the normalised plot below shows trends from Jan 1998 to the present for GISS, HadCrut, UAH and RSS

GISS shows much more warming than anybody else during that period. Hansen claims :

The difference of +0.08°C compared with 2005, the prior warmest year, is large enough that 2010 is likely, but not certain, to be the warmest year in the GISS record.

The discrepancy with the other data sources is larger than Hansen’s claimed 0.08 record. Is it a record temperature, or is it good old fashioned bad data?

Either way, it is still far below Hansen’s projected temperatures for 2010. This is not pretty science.

Hansen made temperature  forecasts which have proven too high. Now his “measured” temperature data is pushing higher than everyone else. Would you accept the other team’s coach doing double duty as the referee? In what other profession would people accept this sort of conflict of interest?

About these ads

186 thoughts on “Is Hansen’s Recent Temperature Data Consistent?

  1. “Hansen made temperature forecasts which have proven too low”

    I am sure you mean “too high”.

  2. No where Steve. But, remember the money and the prestige of NASA is at stake and their people are in control of the purse strings.

  3. Hansen made temperature forecasts which have proven too low.

    TYPO? Shouldn’t that be “… too high”?

  4. MODERATOR :

    Just noticed a typo

    “Hansen made temperature  forecasts which have proven too low”

    Should read :

    “Hansen made temperature  forecasts which have proven too high”

    Thx

    Reply: Fixed ~ ctm

  5. I thought that world temps were dropping the last 10 years or so, or is that just the US temp record?

  6. Gistemp methodology is accurately documented and the code is available. It has been reproduced by multiple citizen scientists.

    It departs from other indexes for known reasons which can be debated both in the literature and in the blogosphere. Backhanded insinuations of evil intent, such as this, do little to further productive discussion.

  7. It’s that time of the Economy known as weeding out the underachievers.
    In Hansens own word “Shut ‘er down”.
    The $$$ can be put to better use elsewhere.

  8. If, indeed, Hansen had made forecasts which were too low, he could subsequently claim that the actual temperatures were far worse than even he thought… we’ve never heard that before, have we?

  9. I thought that world temps were dropping the last 10 years or so, or is that just the US temp record?

    World. But bear in mind the 10-year stretch is currently running over 2000 La Nina ground. Low starting point.

  10. Let Hansen run his own private company in a sink or swim mode.
    He could call it Hansens Institute for Climate upwarming Studies, or HICupS.

  11. jeez

    GISTEMP departs from HadCrut because they generate Arctic data where they have none.

    Conflicts of interest are highly frowned upon in all fields, and most people are smart enough to avoid them.

  12. “GISS shows much more warming than anybody else during that period”

    Then it would be the out and out lier.

  13. The UK met office already has showed that Hadleys sampling is at the lower scale of the warming and that they likely miss out on the warming of the 2000s. What more evidence do you people need before you stop hauling out the 1998 is the warmest argument…

  14. I am a little confused on that HADCRUT graph, that I have seen in at least two posts. I remember a few years ago where Hansen was coerced to concede that the 1930’s were actually warmer than 1988, yet this graph shows the 1930s barely even blipping above the “Normal” line, and way way way lower than 1988.

    Watts up with that?

    Reply: That was the US index, this is the global index. ~ ctm

  15. What is the real world experience closer to?

    Hansen’s prediction of 0.24 C per decade or the null hypothesis of no warming due to anthropogenic causes?

  16. Yes Steven, known, documented, and not changed recently to my knowledge.

    Under other conditions this methodology could lead to a cooling bias (although I have my own opinions on the confirmation bias which seems rampant throughout climatology).

    So what is the point of your accusations of conflict of interest if you already know the reasons for the departure, yet fail to mention it in your original post?

    How does it contribute to the discussion?

    It’s not like CRU and GISS don’t know they do this differently.

    It’s not like the reasons for this departure of indexes isn’t known and documented.

    Conflicts of interest are completely neutralized of negative intent with full disclosure.

    Full disclosure exists here. What are you accomplishing by ululating about this?

  17. jeez,

    People avoid conflicts of interest because they are good, not because they are evil.

    If Hansen is going to tout a record temperature to the press and politicians, he needs to include disclaimers that more sophisticated satellite and other ground based data disagree. He needs to mention that the slope of his his recent trends are several times higher than modern satellite data. He needs to mention that he extrapolates data 1200 km. He needs to mention that he has very little data at either pole or in Africa.

    Does he do any of that?

  18. All is documented, but you made me look even harder at your cherry-picked example.

    If you change the start date of your plot from 1998 to 1999, which is much closer to “the past decade”, GISS tracks almost identically to the satellites and radiosondes.

    So the suspected results of your conflict of interest are a direct result of a carefully chosen start date.

    I am no fan of Jim Hansen, but this post adds nothing to the discussion and in my opinion, reduces the credibility of this site.

  19. Steve:

    Nearly 50 years ago, my mean, old maid, 9th grade English teacher taught me that the word “data” is plural/”datum” being the singular. If you would so kindly consider changing the first word of you title from “IS” to “ARE”, then she may continue to rest in peace and not come back to haunt me. (I realize you were merely following Dr. Christy, but must you perpetuate his error and risk my being haunted? Alternatively, you coul add (sic) after “IS”, but we don’t want to offend Dr. Christy any more than neccesary.)

  20. SIGH! Your not you and could not coul. Now I am really going to be haunted for failure to proof before posting.

  21. “Would you accept the other team’s coach doing double duty as the referee? In what other profession would people accept this sort of conflict of interest?”

    I’d say the mafia but I’d not want to tarnish their, by comparison, upstanding good name.

  22. In almost any other scientific field, generation of data where none exists to prove an outcome would result in scorn and possible dismissal, but not with the AGW group. This is a Sect where “just trust us” still works for those not discerning enough to see through the flack and disinformation. It also helps to plainly point out where the discrepancies lie when not so obvious as these are very sly types capable of twists subtle enough to compete with the CIA. Of course I’m sure their reasoning is justified for job protection and an inability to handle embarrassment at any level.

  23. jeez says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Gistemp methodology is accurately documented and the code is available.

    It’s the first I’ve heard GISTemp is that open to the public. What a waste all those FOIs requests were.

    Reply: Gistemp was opened up a couple of years ago, likely as a result of some of McIntyre’s error catching. There are many other reason for FOI’s. ~ ctm

  24. jeez says:

    Conflicts of interest are completely neutralized of negative intent with full disclosure.

    I don’t know that I would go that far.

    • Dave F,

      Yeah, the word “completely” was perhaps too much, I was in a hurry.

      Peter Foster,

      You misunderstand my intent. I am no fan of Hansen or GISS. Read everything I wrote again. Steven knew the reason for the departure but failed to mention it. He chose a start date that makes his point while the next year completely negates it. This post is targeted as a gotcha post against GISS by highlighting conflict of interest, but is transparently weak and without substance. If a method is open and documented then that needs to be the starting point for the discussion of why it differs from another method.

  25. If Jeez thinks that GISS is all above board then perhaps he could explain why GISS US graphs pre 1999 show the 1940’s warmer than 1998 but post 1999 graphs show the 1940’s warm period distinctly below the 1998 peak. Were all the thermometers reading wrong 50-60 years ago or did someone at GISS in 1999 do a fiddle.

  26. jeez says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Backhanded insinuations

    Since the room for James Hansen’s 1988 testimony was heated up by politicians it’s hard to believe he is pure a the driven snow.

  27. There are many other reason for FOI’s. ~ ctm

    I thought learning about method was part of it.

  28. Robert says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    The UK met office already has showed that Hadleys sampling is at the lower scale of the warming and that they likely miss out on the warming of the 2000s. What more evidence do you people need before you stop hauling out the 1998 is the warmest argument…

    UAH and RSS also have 1998 the warmest.

  29. 899 says:
    August 16, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    If you think that’s bad, check this out:

    Oh no, not Judith Curry.

  30. jeez says:
    August 16, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    So the suspected results of your conflict of interest are a direct result of a carefully chosen start date.

    Now it appears you are implying intent.

  31. I am afraid Dr. Hansen has become a political figure rather than a scientist. You can never trust his science again. Defending eco-terrorists, and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars extreme agenda money readily show his motivations. Big money buys big science.

  32. jeez says:
    August 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    ul·u·late (ly-lt, yl-)
    intr.v. ul·u·lat·ed, ul·u·lat·ing, ul·u·lates

    To howl, wail, or lament loudly.

    Now who is engaging in ululation?

    Keep those intransitive verbs coming, jeez. Adds to the entertainment value.

  33. McKitrick 2010 answered why this surface temperature stuff is manufactured garbage. How many times do we have to get the pavlovian reaction to it?

  34. Robert says:
    August 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    “Hansen made temperature forecasts which have proven too low”
    I am sure you mean “too high”.

    Heh. Oh, good … I read that line over and over trying to make sense of it in the context of the article.

  35. John Morrow:

    If the correctness criteria is what the media is using, then data is indeed singular.

    –Joe

  36. Of course they always leave out the error bars.

    A J Strata does a nice job of looking at the measurement error of these global temperature measurements.

    “….The title of this graph indicates this is the CRU computed sampling (measurement) error in C for 1969. Note how large these sampling errors are. They start at 0.5°C, which is the mark where any indication of global warming is just statistical noise and not reality. Most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range, which means any attempt to claim a global increase below this threshold is mathematically false. Imagine the noise in the 1880 data! You cannot create detail (resolution) below what your sensor system can measure. CRU has proven my point already – they do not have the temperature data to detect a 0.8°C global warming trend since 1960, let alone 1880….”

    Note that the 0.5°C error was mainly for USA measurements and Anthony’s Surface Station Project puts that degree of accuracy in doubt. so the noise overwhelms any real signal in any of these graphs. You might as well plot a straight line with a ruler and save the tax payer a boodle of money.

    Too bad nobody ever taught significant figures to these “scientists”

  37. As the climate funding dollars begin to dry up, either as a result of politicians being forced to clue in by their constituencies or as a result of shrinking budgets due to deficits, it’ll be interesting to watch the various alarmist groups attack each others’ credibility in order to retain their own place at the trough.

    This cult of the carbon cow will fracture as all religions have.

  38. DR says:
    August 16, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    “Hansen has stated breaking the law is justified to save the planet. Extrapolate from that.”

    It is quite telling. The term “at all costs” comes to mind, but then I realize some place no value on integrity. So the cost, for some, would be nil.

  39. Despite my Adobe Reader crashing just now, I am enjoying flicking through the statistical study… Very interesting.

  40. “Reply: Gistemp was opened up a couple of years ago, likely as a result of some of McIntyre’s error catching. There are many other reason for FOI’s. ~ ctm”

    Some of us would say as a direct result. But perhaps it was a case of timing……………………….nope. I think it was Steve Mac.

    Reply: Without proof I needed to qualify as “likely”. ~ ctm

  41. wien1938 says:
    August 16, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    “Despite my Adobe Reader crashing just now, I am enjoying flicking through the statistical study… Very interesting.”

    Page 21 killed mine. To see the graphs, I had to jump there and then give Adobe the 3 finger salute. After that, just go to page 22. At least, that was my experience.

  42. I don’t know what James Hansen’s intent is. I am not acquainted with him so I have no idea. Though I can see him at coal protests, testifying at trials for vandalism for global warming, political hearings, and once not showing up when he was to appear with John Christy. So I’m not completely in the dark about him.

    But regardless of knowing intent, I can see there is something very different about his data set. And from what I have learned of him it’s abundantly clear he is not an unbiased entity in global warming, whether by good intent or bad. I’d like to think his personal bias doesn’t effect his work. I’d like to think that, but I see his data set is very different than others—so I think I have legitimate suspicions. Should I conclude his personality is not showing up in his work? If I had to sit on a jury deciding whether it is, or not, I would have some serious questions about not only that, but as to whether he is in the position at NASA he is in because of his personal bias and not just by some lucky coincidence.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Also, if something criminal is, per chance, going on in some aspect of global warming (I am not specifying James Hansen here, just in general) intent is not of much importance except when I might come to the severity of the penalty. Some people actually commit crimes in what they feel is good intent—the single mother embezzling money from work to help pay the bills, the man who lost his job and steals food for his children, etc. These are still crimes. So the idea of not prosecuting possible crimes committed in “global warming” because we don’t know the intent of the people sounds noble (for lack of a better word) but it doesn’t work in real life. If we applied the same rule to all crimes we’d be spending time in trials first of all trying to find if there was malice involved. I think the only time malice, and good, or bad, intent come into play in trial is in the sentencing phase not in whether a crime should be prosecuted or not.

  43. jeez…

    When you say regarding GISTEMP methodology: “It has been reproduced by multiple citizen scientists.”

    Do you mean that anyone can take the adjusted data and create the same graph?
    (Stick the raw data into their program and create the same adjusted data.)

    Or do you mean that anyone can produce the adjusted data given the raw data, AND have a reasonable answer as to why (~ after 1970), temps are adjusted up, and older temps are adjusted down.

    I suspect that you meant the former.

  44. steven g.

    “GISTEMP departs from HadCrut because they generate Arctic data where they have none.

    They don’t “generate data” where there is none. They take the level of warming trend seen on the perimeters of the pole and estimate that the level of warming seen at the pole is neither warmer or cooler that the areas seen just south of the pole. Recent satillite reanalysis shows that the arctic has seen warming TRENDS that are greater than other portions of the globe, so their estimation is not out of line with other lines of evidence. If, 80N 60E sees .5C of warming since 1980 and if 80N, -120E also sees .5C of warming do you figure that 90,0 saw?
    1. the same warming (Giss)
    2. Less warming ( evidence?)
    3. More warming ( latest re analysis of Sat. data)?

  45. As one of the regulars at CA who badgered Gavin to release the code, I have to agree with jeez. One element of our argument was by opening the code researchers could show they had nothing to hide. Hidden motives dont matter. Hansen’s method is a bit quirky here and there, but unlike many people who blather on about it I actually read all the damn code back in 2007. Go to CA and look at the threads. I’ve also read all of the python refactor and I run the code on my machine. And I did my own version. hansen’s motives dont change the answer. I can flip a switch in my code and ALSO interpolate over the pole or not. its a choice. In the end, over long periods, the difference doesnt matter much. Cherry pick a period, you can show that up is down. ask Mann.

    Can we please rise above the cheap tricks the alarmists use?

  46. If you change the start date of your plot from 1998 to 1999, which is much closer to “the past decade”, GISS tracks almost identically to the satellites and radiosondes.

    This is far less impressive when you know that they adjusted the radiosonde data to make it true. These people managed to find one “fix” to make the actual readings fit the “correct” answer: “Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
    Steven C. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante, Cathryn L. Meyer”. There are others. You are dreaming if you think the radiosonde data is unadjusted.

    I also do not believe we should put our faith entirely in satellites. We have absolutely no way of calibrating them – so if they are showing drift over time, then we are being fooled. I am also struck by how the UAH had a very low temperature increase, but was persuaded to increase it. Perhaps they were right, but it does suggest strongly that the satellite readings are not easy to interpret. The people who do this make no bones about it. Even assuming the readings are correct : “Trends in the satellite data are very sensitive to the details of the method used to “construct” the data set.”

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ametsoc.org%2Fatmospolicy%2Fdocuments%2FNovember162005CarlMears.pdf&ei=PSpqTKqGMYK-sAPrtfFE&usg=AFQjCNEwJS-dXuY6u5LBCX0ryIe0cT9QwQ&sig2=K9tQyi2RwnbZBqUFovpXwQ

    All in all, the correspondence of GISS, radiosonde and satellite could easily be confirmation bias at work.

    It’s a shame, because it would be nice to think the data presented was perfect.

  47. Two things to consider:

    1. When looking recent temp trends, one shall reduce Pinatubo away from data before conclusions. Here is the graph showing HadCRUT timeseries with Pinatubo reduced:

    Used correction values are obtained from Hansen’s research:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/

    2. DMI data and GISTEMP have apparent divergence in the arctic. DMI regards their data as the best approximate which can be obtained with current methods. So it would be worth to make full comparisation between these datasets.

  48. Cyclical data: Not so long ago critics of Goddard INSISTED that he use a “peak to peak” period. They were right. He is doing it that way now.
    So recent temperature trends have to be calculated from 1998 to 2010. To suggest a period starting in 1999 (trough) to 2010 (crest) is not honest.

  49. I notice the “adjusted” satellite anomalies are still being used as a measure of surface temperature. This adjustment is completely irrelevant to Hansen’s prediction. But, on the subject of predictions, this one from World climate Report (December 1998) hardly covers itself in glory. See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/search/search.htm where it says

    That 1998’s extremely warm temperatures were largely confined to one calendar year makes the annual record high temperature 1998 has established quite a difficult one to break.

    If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.

    Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.

    No reasonable offers refused

    Ooops!

  50. Good discussion here. Thanks jeez and Mosher for weighing in and making others chip in with considered replies.

    Having said which, this thread makes me want to understand, in fairly layman’s terms (not just Mosh’s refs to back numbers of CA which is too much for many of us to undertake)…. just HOW can Hansen’s algorithms produce such a fantastic discrepancy of warming rate. There is SOMETHING odd which perhaps McShane and Wyner could flush out and make quite comprehensible to the rest of us :) :) :)

  51. The distinction between fabrication and interpolation is essential. I think I have to fall in with Mosher and jeez. I don’t come to WUWT for propagandist self-gratification. That’s what I left RC to get away from. It would be nice to be able to point to this as a primary distinction between the two. I appreciate Steve Goddard’s efforts to highlight questionable practices, but I feel that at most we should be asking questions about questionable practices, not compounding them or replicating them. Two wrongs, and all that. In the interest of maintaining incontrovertible integrity, this is a boundary over which you should not step.

    OT, to John Morrow and in defence of Christy and Goddard, “data” vs “datum”: “Data” is now accepted as an alternative to “datum”. In the past 30 years of writing and handling the stuff, I’ve come to regard both code and data as like coffee. You write code like you drink coffee. You handle data like you pour coffee. You manipulate data like you stir coffee. You query a database like you sip coffee. You don’t write a page of codes any more than you make a cup of coffees. Isn’t your database like a jar of coffee? Two databases are like two jars of coffee, each contain data like each contain coffee. What does a datum look like? What does a single code look like? Is a code an ASCII character? A function? A subroutine? A line? Isn’t a block of code like a spoonful of coffee? Isn’t a data object a cup of coffee? Just my thinkings.. sorry for the OT :)

  52. Here’s a question:

    Of the assumptions, adjustments, and other judgment calls made by Hansen to producing GISS, roughly what percentage push the final result towards the warmist position? I will guess it’s about 95%.

    My hypothesis is that when you produce a temperature series, you need to make many assumptions, adjustments, and other judgments. It’s possible to make the vast majority of those judgments in a defensible way but which still leads to a result supporting the warmist position. The net result is a graph which is much more supportive of the warmist position than it really should be. I would guess that’s what’s happening with GISS. I haven’t studied the details so I’m just hypothesizing, but that’s what my instincts tell me is probably happening.

  53. jeez: August 17, 2010 at 1:49 am
    I don’t think everyone here understands my point of view. I want to increase the credibility of WUWT not tear it down. Shrill accusations of conflict of interest where the methods are transparent only serve to make this site an advocacy site and not a science site.

    Relax and enjoy the ride. Part of WUWT’s appeal is that everyone who follows the rules will have a say on a particular topic — don’t underestimate the readers’ ability to differentiate between venting and arguing a point.

    Popcorn?

  54. Steven mosher

    Don’t like 1998 as a start date? Try 1999. Or 2000. Or 2001. Or 2002. Or 2003. Or 2004.

    The reason I used 1998 (even though it shows less divergence than later years) as a start date was because it was the previous El Nino peak. Satellites amplify ENSO events relative to surface data, so it becomes essential to use El Nino to El Nino or La Nina to La Nina when comparing vs. surface data.

  55. Please try doing a little research before launching accusations.

    In July, GISS showed the region north of 80N as above normal, while DMI showed it as the coldest on record. How did GISS come to this conclusion, when they have little or no data north of 80N?

    Hansen admits that GISS diverges from HadCrut since 1998, because he claims better Arctic coverage.

  56. Hansen has devoted his life and staked his reputation on saving mankind from global warming.

    We have seen a steady stream of upwards temperature adjustments coming out of NASA over the last decade. The Antarctic map turned from blue to red. The global temperature data has rotated upwards. GISS has diverged from HadCrut.

    A sensible person would recuse himself to avoid appearance of conflict of interest.

    Climate scientists should be treated the same way as everyone else.

  57. Steven Goddard:

    What is your point? During last winter months GISS showed several degrees more warming than DMI. It has also happened some other years during 2000’s. I have not found any months showing reverse, so I conclude that GISS’s trend covering 80N-90N might be quite different from DMI during 2000’s.

    While methods are different, it is still statistically strange that GISS seems always show warmer.

  58. The idea that James Hansen has doctored the data is a totally non-falsifiable conspiracy theory. I notice you don’t accuse anyone in the the Hadley Center or the CRU of adjusting the HadCRUT data downwards to make it more flat, even though that is just as likely (read: just as ridiculous).

  59. The most recent GISS graph below shows nearly constant warming from 1965 to the present, with 2010 almost 0.1°C warmer than the actual warmest year of 1998.

    The GISS graph presented is NOT a calendar year time series. The graph is a 12-month running mean running from mid-year to mid-year. GISS does not pretend otherwise.

    The point of that graph is to show what the *last* 12 months look like in comparison to previous twelvemonth, mid-year to mid-year periods. Obviously, this will result in changes for the whole record.

    While it’s obviously a good convention, there is no mathematical reason why analysis of yearly global temps should be run on a Jan – Dec basis. Think of the tax year, for example.

    Steve, could you please label the graph more clearly, so that it is not confused with the calendar year GISS record, or with the other calendar year records?

    Re HadCRUt: your assertion that 2010 is currently looking cooler than 1998 is wrong. The graph you link to only goes up to 2009. Here is the link to the HadCRUt graph with the current year included (based on an average of the months so far).

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    Would you please amend that, too?

  60. barry

    HadCrut January to June 1998 – 0.58
    HadCrut January to June 2010 – 0.52

    This includes HadCrut’s recent upwards (cough cough) adjustments.

    July/August, 1998 were very high, so it is likely that 2010 will drop further relative to 1998. Hope this helps.

  61. stevengoddard, for what it’s worth I share your suspicions. I can’t reinforce your suspicions because I depend on information from you in forming my opinion. I don’t have sufficient expertise. But, bottom line, grave suspicion is distinct from clear evidence and definitive proof. I think you’ve got clear evidence of poor or questionable practice. The problem for me is the leap from evidence of questionable practice, which you’ve presented, to definitive proof of motive, which I don’t think can be established. That doesn’t mean we can’t suspect it, but that’s different.

  62. Leone

    DMI showed record low (1958-2002) temperatures north of 80N.
    GISS showed above average (1958-2002) temperatures north of 80N.

    You don’t see a problem there?

  63. Leone says: “Two things to consider:
    “1. When looking recent temp trends, one shall reduce Pinatubo away from data before conclusions. Here is the graph showing HadCRUT timeseries with Pinatubo reduced…”

    Have you also adjusted for other volcanic eruptions such as El Chiochon?

    You continued, “Used correction values are obtained from Hansen’s research…”

    You should check to see if the Hadley Centre has published volcanic aerosol adjustments, because the year-to-year variability of GISTEMP and HADCRUT are different. It would make a difference.

  64. Steve Goddard wrote: “Hansen admits that GISS diverges from HadCrut since 1998, because he claims better Arctic coverage.”

    We all understand that the GISS creates the illusion of a complete Arctic dataset, but GISS does have better land surface data coverage in the Arctic; that is, they use more surface stations than Hadley Centre.

    Also, if you would, please add the two TLT datasets to all of you follow-up trend comparisons with the different start dates. The trend graphs you’ve provided in the comments don’t have the same datasets as the trend comparison you included in the post, and someone might think you’re trying to hide the increases in the TLT trends when you changed start years.

  65. ” Steven mosher says:
    August 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    If, 80N 60E sees .5C of warming since 1980 and if 80N, -120E also sees .5C of warming do you figure that 90,0 saw?
    1. the same warming (Giss)
    2. Less warming ( evidence?)
    3. More warming ( latest re analysis of Sat. data)?”

    Asking questions like these only makes sense if we do NOT have any reliable data. But we do. A lot of measuring is going on in the arctic (even if there is no stationary station on the pole due to obvious reasons), and the DMI publishes trustworthy temperatures. So I say with confidence that GISS cheats.
    (“Trustworthy”: DMI is in the warmers camp. So if their data does not confirm warming, it must be because they are honest.)

  66. ” Leone says:
    August 17, 2010 at 5:20 am
    While methods are different, it is still statistically strange that GISS seems always show warmer.”

    That would be OK, but they show more warmING, which means that the difference gets bigger with time.
    DMI are meteorologist, they believe temperature should be measured with thermometers and similar things. GISS are climatologists, they believe temperature is to be estimated from a great big distance.

  67. Steven Goddard: Regarding my earlier comment, here, I’ll save you some time.

    The following is a comparison graph from January 1998 to May 2010, with linear trends, including GISS, Hadley Centre, and NCDC surface temperature and RSS and UAH TLT data. As you’ll note, the GISS and NCDC trends are highest, with NCDC a distant second. But also note how the two TLT datasets have larger responses to the 1997/98 El Niño than the three surface-based datasets. The two TLT datasets also have a greater lag, meaning they stayed at the elevated levels longer into 1998.

    And now if you start the trend comparison in 1999, the linear trends UAH and RSS TLT anomalies are now much closer to the GISS trend, because they overreact to the La Niña.

    This is one of the hazards of short-term linear trend comparisons. No matter what you select for a start date, someone is always going to comment about it.

  68. Hope this helps.

    It doesn’t. You say:

    HadCrut disagrees. They show temperatures flat over the past decade. and 2010 about 0.1°C cooler than the warmest year 1998.

    Then you display a graph from HadCRUt that only goes to 2009, claiming it is showing us 2010 temperatures.

    Here is the current HadCRUt graph, including 2010 up to June (soon to include July).

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

  69. Bob,

    The amplification of satellite temps is exactly the reason why you have to do a peak-to-peak (1998-2010) comparison to get meaningful results vs surface data. Starting in 1999 is not reasonable.

    No surprise that GISS and NCDC are similar. Their data sets are not independent.

  70. Weird. I have not discussed “suspicion,” “evil” or anything of the sort.

    Pointing out the appearance of a conflict of interest is not an indictment.

    I can not be responsible for what goes on in other people’s heads.

  71. The only thing that matters is data. It’s hard to argue with data Steven Goddard is presenting. GISS is different. And his point about ENSO amplification in satellite when comparing it to GISS seems to be getting overlooked.

  72. It looks like trend is a distraction to temperature. Arctic trends are distracting from the actual temperature shown by GISS. I don’t care whet their anomaly shows. I do care about a map that shows red there when in reality it should be blue.

  73. The amplification of satellite temps is exactly the reason why you have to do a peak-to-peak (1998-2010) comparison to get meaningful results vs surface data.

    If satellite peaks are amplifications of surface peaks, then the comparison is distorted by the amplification. I.E, larger peaks will have a bigger difference in temps than smaller ones. In this case, 1997/98 was a super el Nino, and 2009/10 only a moderate one. This will skew the results when comparing surface and satellite records.

    A much better method is to use longer time series, where the signal to noise ratio is greater. 13 years is not long enough – it fails statistical significance precisely because the data is too noisy to compute meaningful trends over that time period. Amplified peaks and troughs only compound the problem for comparisons.

  74. Just once, I would like to see someone take a Global Temperature Dataset 18** – 2010, and plot it from zero on the Y-axis.
    It is getting very old looking at rubber-banded Y-Axes.

  75. barry

    If I measure mid-point to mid-point people complain. If I measure peak-to-peak people complain.

    For some reason, people seem to be fine with Hansen’s trough to peak, which is the most meaningless of all possible measurements. Even worse, trough to peak error gets worse in satellite data because of amplification.

    The only measurement which makes any sense in this case is peak to peak i.e. 1998 to 2010.

  76. barry

    Given that we haven’t completed 2010, it is going to be pretty difficult to provide 2010 annual data isn’t it.

    Warmists want to switch over to July-July data before La Nina kicks in. i.e. catch the full El Nino cycle for maximum warming. LOL

  77. I can’t imagine why our friends are so eager to finalize 2010 data – before temperatures start tanking from la Nina.

    Some of the most transparent cherry-picking ever. Lame.

  78. barry says:
    August 17, 2010 at 8:05 am

    ‘The amplification of satellite temps is exactly the reason why you have to do a peak-to-peak (1998-2010) comparison to get meaningful results vs surface data.’
    ‘A much better method is to use longer time series, where the signal to noise ratio is greater. 13 years is not long enough – it fails statistical significance precisely because the data is too noisy to compute meaningful trends over that time period. Amplified peaks and troughs only compound the problem for comparisons.’

    Right, 12 years (peak 1998 to peak 2010) only give the trend for these 12 years, and there is neither warming or cooling. But 30 years are not very significant, either (UAH satellite temperatures start in Dezember 1978). Now, just what are we to do if we want to compare 1979-1998 with 1998-2010 to see if there is a change?

  79. Steven Mosher said, “Hansen’s method is a bit quirky here and there, but unlike many people who blather on about it I actually read all the damn code back in 2007. Go to CA and look at the threads. I’ve also read all of the python refactor and I run the code on my machine. ”

    Steven, who you recall how UHI adjustment is implemented in GISTEMP? Do you recall discussing UHI implementation in the CA thread(s) you referred to earlier?

  80. Dave Yup.

    I have issues with the Adjustment that have evolved over time. Go figure. You get to educate yourself over time. Basically this:

    1. The criteria for urban ( nightlights) is not the best proxy. Ron Broberg, (mostly) Zeke and I have been working on different criteria. We all have different approaches to the problem. It will be interesting to see what MATERIAL difference that makes

    2. My preferred approach is just to drop Urban. No adjustment. Live with the spatial uncertainty.

    3. Hansen’s adjustment is just a meat grinder that may get some right and some wrong. There are cases where it looks flat wrong. They bear some investigation, but in the end, the adjustment doesnt amount to much. CERTAINLY not all the warming in the record. Looking at unadjusted data shows you that. looking at just rural shows you that. looking at satillite data shows you that.

    4. For grins I will probably do my own adjustment just to prove the point.

    stevemosher.wordpress.com

  81. “The only thing that matters is data. It’s hard to argue with data Steven Goddard is presenting. GISS is different.”

    yes, and if it was EXACTLY the same you would say whats the point of having CRU and GISS. It’s different. Is it materially different? depends upon your purpose. A BMW is materially different than a Ford. but for the purpose of going to the store both will do. As spock would say a difference that makes no difference, makes no difference. if you have a different purpose then of course the GISS difference may make a difference. Purpose matters. and so, it becomes a discussion of intent, whether intended or not

  82. 0.08C during a cherry picked time interval is a meaningless number – unless it gives you an excuse to rush to the press and politicians with a statement about “the warmest year on record.”

    “Second warmest El Nino in the last 30 years” doesn’t sound quite as impressive.

    It is all about science, no doubt.

  83. Weird. I have not discussed “suspicion,” “evil” or anything of the sort.

    Pointing out the appearance of a conflict of interest is not an indictment.

    I can not be responsible for what goes on in other people’s heads.

    Seriously Steve, you play word games, you rile everyone up by choosing cherry-picking start dates to imply that GISS is gaming the system to imply that Hansen is working to massage the index to match his previous predictions. You actually know why the indexes differ in methodologies. You purposefully neglect to mention the reason (arctic interpolation) until we called you out on it. After leading people down this path of innuendo you end with the following quote:

    Would you accept the other team’s coach doing double duty as the referee? In what other profession would people accept this sort of conflict of interest?

    But now you claim you never meant to imply any malfeasance. Seriously Steve SimonH said it best above.

    I don’t come to WUWT for propagandist self-gratification.

    This post and your previous one where you appear unable to do arithmetic or understand English when arguing with Leif do not enhance the stature of this site. Your attempts at gotcha journalism are not science.

  84. Steve, thank you for the prompt response.

    “1. The criteria for urban ( nightlights) is not the best proxy. Ron Broberg, (mostly) Zeke and I have been working on different criteria. We all have different approaches to the problem. It will be interesting to see what MATERIAL difference that makes

    2. My preferred approach is just to drop Urban. No adjustment. Live with the spatial uncertainty.”

    I too believe it appropriate to drop any UHI “adjustment.” Surface level land temperatures are where we live and IMO temperature series over land masses should reflect where humanity resides. It seems to me, though, that estimates of “urban heat island” effects are needed for purposes of cause attribution with aggregate UHI effect decomposed into rising temps due to land-use change versus changes in atmospheric composition. I may be mistaken, but I tend to think such a decomposition of UHI effects would lead to relative downgrading of global CO2 concentrations in GCMs.

  85. jeez

    If you consider human nature to be malfeasance, then you must be a difficult person to get along with. Everybody is biased to find what they want.

    You also seem to be a mind reader, and a few other terms come to mind.

  86. Reading about GISS, HadCrut, satellites and so forth on WUWT for the last few months one could be forgiven for thinking that the record or near record temperatures being reported by all approaches is an indication of just about any conceivable thing EXCEPT rising temperature. There is a stark disconnect between the tone of recent writing and the reality unfolding. Global temperatures are rising and no amount of invoking UHI, data smoothing, confilict of interest or any other red herring alters this fact.

  87. Ammonite

    Do you think Hansen will also cherry pick the upcoming 12 month La Nina period to prove that global temperatures are plummeting?

    At GISS, El Nino is climate, but La Nina is an excuse.

  88. Steven mosher says:
    August 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    steven g.

    “GISTEMP departs from HadCrut because they generate Arctic data where they have none.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but GISS hasn’t been applying 0.5 degrees warning to the areas they have no data for. They’ve been applying 2, 4, and sometimes 6 degrees all summer. I’ve seen a lot of red on their charts all summer. But, the people who have the most data there have been showing it below average up there the entire summer.

  89. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 8:43 am
    barry

    If I measure mid-point to mid-point people complain. If I measure peak-to-peak people complain.

    For some reason, people seem to be fine with Hansen’s trough to peak, which is the most meaningless of all possible measurements. Even worse, trough to peak error gets worse in satellite data because of amplification.

    The only measurement which makes any sense in this case is peak to peak i.e. 1998 to 2010.

    _____________________________________________________________

    Methinks that someone here doesn’t understand cyclic behaviors, such as diurnal, annual, tidal constituents, waves of perminent behavior, etceteras.

    For example, doing an FFT on the global temperature record (any global temperature record) will not produce the sharp peaks in the energy density spectra as would be seen for diurnal and daily temperature data at one location for many days or years, or the annual cyclic behavior seen in Arctic and Antarctica sea ice extent/area data over many years, or the tidal records over many days or years which have many well known components, all of which produce very well defined narrow banded large amplitude spikes in the FFT spectra.

    So unless you can catagorically state the exact periodicity and amplitude of ENSO or other such ocean oscillations that occur at unknown and varying decadal-scale timeframes and varying amplitudes, what’s your point, other than you don’t understand the difference between truly cyclic stationary behaviors and non-stationary behaviors.

  90. …interesting thing about the warm bias of satellites during El Nino, the warmists regained respect for them (with only grudging ackowledgement of the bias). This after all but disavowing them during the previous la Nina.

  91. Given that we haven’t completed 2010, it is going to be pretty difficult to provide 2010 annual data isn’t it.

    Steve,

    You are talking about 2010 temps. I’m only quoting you. Your words:

    HadCrut disagrees. They show temperatures flat over the past decade. and 2010 about 0.1°C cooler than the warmest year 1998.

    The graph you display to demonstrate this here runs to 2009, NOT 2010.

    Hadley does have a graph at their website with 2010 to-date included. This is what you should be pointing at for 2010 temps according to HadCRUt.

    You also show us GISS’s graph of the latest 12-month running mean and say:

    “The most recent GISS graph below shows nearly constant warming from 1965 to the present”

    That’s only a result of using that particular 12-month running mean. It is wrong to compare that GISS graph with Hadley’s calendar-year graph to say anything about temperature trends.

    If you run GISS as a calendar year plot, the modern warming period doesn’t start until 1976, same as Hadley.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/every:12/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:1977/trend/offset:-0.2/from:1965/to:1977/trend

    GISS don’t intend that 12-year running mean to be used as a new calendar year record, only to show how warm the *last* 12 months was.

    If you don’t point these things out in your post, readers will be confused.

    (RSS latest 12-month average is also warmer than any previous twelvemonth with the same start and end month – not so for UAH and Hadley)

  92. barry,

    The last 12 months was El Nino.

    Will GISS be crowing about the next 12 months?
    Not likely, because GISS portrays El Nino as climate and La Nina as just weather.

  93. Bob Tisdale says:
    August 17, 2010 at 7:21 am

    The following is a comparison graph from January 1998 to May 2010,

    What some readers might not be catching is how low GISS is at one end and how high it goes at the other:

    GISS is different. Why is it so different?

  94. Steven Mosher says:
    August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

    “The only thing that matters is data. It’s hard to argue with data Steven Goddard is presenting. GISS is different.”

    yes, and if it was EXACTLY the same you would say whats the point of having CRU and GISS.

    Huh. I would?

  95. Steven Mosher says:
    August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Purpose matters. and so, it becomes a discussion of intent, whether intended or not

    Relax with the putting of words in my mouth. You don’t even know me. Kind of an unusual introduction you make of yourself to me.

    Believe it or not, I only care about the data. Somehow this thread has become surreal. There are people thinking they know what other people are thinking and intending.

  96. jeez says:
    August 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    You purposefully neglect to mention the reason (arctic interpolation) until we called you out on it. After leading people down this path of innuendo you end with the following quote:

    The tone of this thread really should lighten up.

    Steven Goddard has talked about GISS Arctic temperatures for weeks now. It’s nothing new. Also, you can drop me from the list of people being led down this path. I can see the data for myself. Something is wrong with GISTemp.

    Let’s all have a nice night now.

  97. Amino

    Exactly. Surface data should not show the El Nino 14,000 foot satellite amplification. The fact that GISS does (in 2010 only) is a clear indicator that recent GISS data is flawed.

  98. Steve,

    barry,

    The last 12 months was El Nino.

    So was the same 12 months in 1998. The GISS chart is only saying that, for their data, the current twelvemonths is warmer than the same twelvemonth period around 1998, the time of the ‘el Nino of the century’. RSS have a similar result. Hadley and UAH do not.

    You still have a Hadley graph that only goes to 2009, using it to demonstrate something about 2010. Hadley has a graph at their website that includes 2010 temps-to-date, which you could, and should reference. I understand now that you will not.

    It seems that you will not discuss the time-period distinctions between the GISS 12-month running mean graph and Hadley’s calendar year graph – nor that you will label the GISS 12-month running mean graph clearly to distinguish them.

    Ah well. Have a good day/evening.

  99. I suggest you show error bars on the trends (taking into account autocorrelation of course following Santer et al. 2008; CCSP 2006). There is no way that the temperature trends for the time period starting in 1998 are significantly different among the datasets. Hence, this is not a meaningful way to evaluate the fitness of the GISTEMP dataset for climate monitoring.

  100. stevengoddard says:
    August 17, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    a clear indicator that recent GISS data is flawed.

    That it shows an overall warming trend so different from other data sets says something too.

    Funny that a guy can get jumped on for the saying that an environmental activist—‘acclaimed as the grandfather of global warming’—has a data set that may be biased. Or that there could be a conflict of interest. You could argue there isn’t bias. But you can’t argue there is no conflict of interest.

  101. It looks like temps are headed to negative anomaly by the end of the year.

    If in January GISTemp shows 2010 as the hottest year ever, that disconnect with reality will make NASA look bad. And people will know even more clearly something is up with ‘global warming’.

    (p.s., Steven Goddard didn’t lead me to say that)

  102. Steve Goddard:

    What I am trying to say is that there truly is a problem between GISS and DMI data, because they diverge during 2000’s! But which one is closer to actual temps? I contacted DMI and they regard their temperatures as the best approximate of that area. If this can be scientifically “proven”, HadCRUT and GISS should take values from DMI for the area! It would be better than remain area grey (HadCRUT) or guess the values (GISS)…

  103. ” EFS_Junior says:
    August 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm
    the global temperature record (any global temperature record) will not produce the sharp peaks …”

    Nonsense. All you need is to take the monthly UAH data, copy them to Excel and make a graph. You will be surprised how sharp the peaks in 1998 and 2010 are. They remind me of a Bowie knife. A newly sharpened Bowie knife.
    (But of course you will change the scale of the ordinate, use -1000°C to +1000°C and get a straight line).

  104. Steven Goddard writes:

    “The start/end date was chosen to be El Nino peak to peak.”

    and a bit later:

    “The reason I used 1998 (even though it shows less divergence than later years) as a start date was because it was the previous El Nino peak. Satellites amplify ENSO events relative to surface data, so it becomes essential to use El Nino to El Nino or La Nina to La Nina when comparing vs. surface data.”

    You do realise that you have just openly admitted to cherry picking the observation window to maximise the chance of getting a negative trend. You have even admitted that you know the satelite data are more sensitive to ENSO, making the cherry picking more effective? Sorry, that really is rather funny!

  105. Dikran Marsupial

    The start/end dates were chosen because they are the ones most likely to produce an accurate result. In this case, it produces a negative trend.

  106. Amino Acids in Meteorites,

    You could argue there isn’t bias. But you can’t argue there is no conflict of interest.

    Or one can examine the code and the documentation and make a real analysis and not data mine a few short term trends for gotcha’s and then decide if the perceived conflict of interest is relevant to the results. Multiple bloggers, such as Mosh, (not me) have done this and determined that the differences in interpolation between GISS and CRU don’t really matter over the complete record. It’s a subjective choice.

    But…rather than actually look at the code and the documentation, and do a real critical analysis, Steven plays with WFT, makes a few assumptions about trend periods and then casts innuendo about motives while maintaining plausible deniabilty.

    This is tabloid science and provides ammunition and confirmation to those who consider this site populated by paranoid conspiracy theorists. This is why I object vociferously to this kind of post.

  107. ” Dikran Marsupial says:
    August 18, 2010 at 12:42 am
    You do realise that you have just openly admitted to cherry picking the observation window to maximise the chance of getting a negative trend. ”

    The window has two sides. If you start with a maximum, AND end with a maximum, it is OK. If you start with a minimum, and end with a minimum, it is OK. If you select to start with a minimum but end with a maximum, you are from GISS.

  108. Alexej Buergi. Yes, I know, however the 1998 El-Nino was very strong, stronger than the most recent one, so as satelite datasets are sensitive to ENSO, a peak-to-peak window is STILL cherry picking and biased towards cooling. It is far from O.K., but then again drawing conclusions about long term trends from short term (e.g. decadal) trends isn’t O.K. anyway, whatever start and end dates you choose, as they are dominated by ENSO and hence are unstable.

    BTW GISS know better than to draw conclusions ablut climate from short term trends. Read the paper by Easterling and Wehner.

  109. Steven Goddard wrote:

    “The start/end dates were chosen because they are the ones most likely to produce an accurate result. In this case, it produces a negative trend.”

    Just because you are not aware that it is cherry picking, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Read the paper by Easterling and Wehner and you will find that short term periods are what you would expect as the long term warming is small in comparison with the effects of ENSO. They are there in the observations (not just over the last decade) and they are reproduced in the output of GCMs.

  110. jeez

    Hansen constantly running to the press and claiming a cherry picked record high El Nino temperature without agreement from other data sources is “tabloid science.”

    Paying attention and asking questions is real science. You can recalculate a flawed data set as many times as you want, and come up with the same answer. Garbage in, garbage out.

  111. With its questionable science and conclusions it’s clear that the Easterling and Wehner paper was hand-waved through the pal review because it follows the agenda. For a look at how the climate peer review system has been thoroughly corrupted, see:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    The issue isn’t the flawed paper, but the rigged peer review process. Unless that is corrected, submissions will be required to toe the globaloney line. That’s not science, that is grant-fueled advocacy.

    I look forward to any defense of the way climate peer review is currently done.

  112. Dikran Marsupial

    So how do you feel about Hansen cherry picking El Nino start to end to calculate the earth’s average temperature? Doesn’t take a NASA rocket scientist to see the problem there.

    Do you think he will retract his claims after cherry picking a La Nina 12 month period?

  113. Steven Goddard wrote:

    “Hansen constantly running to the press and claiming a cherry picked record high El Nino temperature without agreement from other data sources is “tabloid science.””

    Oddly enough, Hansen is not constantly running to the press about record temperatures, he only runs to the press when a record actually appears in GISSTemp.

    You do know there is a good technical reason why GISSTemp gives a higher trend value than e.g. HADcrut don’t you (hint: they are not quite measuring exactly the same thing)?

    “Paying attention and asking questions is real science. ”

    so is a bit of self-skepticism and paying attention to the criticisms of ones finidings, in this case that short term trends are unreliable as they are dominated by ENSO and tell you very little about the existence of long-term warming or cooling, and secondly that aligning your window according to ENSO with the highest El Nino peak at the start is bad science as it very obviously biases the result in favour of apparent cooling. I am afraid this type of analysis is just another canard, the error in which is well understood.

  114. Smokey says:
    August 18, 2010 at 5:50 am

    “With its questionable science and conclusions it’s clear that the Easterling and Wehner paper was hand-waved through the pal review because it follows the agenda.”

    In other words smokey says “I can and will disregard any paper that says something I don’t like, but can’t refute, with vague accusation and an ad-hominem”. Fine rhetoric, but science doesn’t work that way, sorry.

  115. James Hansen gave some 1,400 interviews while GW Bush was President, loudly claiming that he was being muzzled.

    Since the election he actually has been muzzled: Good doggy! Good job. Now stfu, you’re a liability to the new Administration.

  116. Dikran Marsupial

    I have written probably half a dozen articles in the last few weeks explaining in great detail why GISS gets higher temperatures than HadCrut. Apparently you haven’t bothered to read them. Instead of making nonsensical insinuations, why don’t you read them?

  117. Steve Goddard writes:

    “So how do you feel about Hansen cherry picking El Nino start to end to calculate the earth’s average temperature? Doesn’t take a NASA rocket scientist to see the problem there.

    Do you think he will retract his claims after cherry picking a La Nina 12 month period?”

    Looks like Steve doesn’t understand the difference between an annual mean global temperature and a trend. If Hansen was making a point using a 12 month trend, then I would be the first to criticise, whether he started it in an El-Nino year or not. However, he wouldn’t be that daft, he was talking about global mean temperatures, are you really saying he is not allowed to talk about temperatures in El-Nino years? If so then “skeptics ” should be banned from mentioning temperatures in La Nina years, fair is fair, no? ;o)

  118. “I have written probably half a dozen articles in the last few weeks explaining in great detail why GISS gets higher temperatures than HadCrut. Apparently you haven’t bothered to read them. Instead of making nonsensical insinuations, why don’t you read them?”

    Good, so we both know then that the difference is explainable by the arctic warming faster than the rest of the globe (based on what evidence is available), and hence Hansen has a valid point in noting a possible record year in GISSTemp, even though it isn’t as likely to be a record in the other datasets. In which case, you weren’t being very even handed when you wrote:

    “Hansen constantly running to the press and claiming a cherry picked record high El Nino temperature WITHOUT AGREEMENT FROM OTHER DATA SOURCES is “tabloid science.””

  119. Against the preponderance of the evidence, Easterling and Wehner claim that temperatures are going up because of human activity. Then they cover their grant trolling butts by claiming that if temperatures go down, the models predicted that, too.

    Silliness like that is not science because it is not testable. The temperature goes up, unless it goes down?? That’s just an unscientific WAG. How can it be falsified?

    Answer: it can’t be falsified. Therefore, it’s not science.

  120. Smokey: The finding of the Easterling and Wehner paper is that there may be decadal periods showing no warming or even cooling. That is perfectly falsifiable, it just needs a longer period of cooling than is observed in the model runs.

    Their findings wouldn’t be in the least surprising to a decent statistician as you can see by just eyeballing the plot that any trend is small compared to the noise. If you want a more objective test, when you compute a trend, first see if the trend is statistically significant or not, and if it isn’t don’t use it to support your assertions. Sadly that will have the effect of preventing any discussion of short term trends as (as I have pointed out) they are unstable (which is why competent scientists tend not to make arguments based on them).

  121. jeez

    If you just want to argue trend/anomaly you would have a point. But if you argue temperature you don’t. And I don’t care about anomaly. I’ve already said that. GISTemp shows temperatures others don’t show. You can have the same anomaly but a warmer temperature snuck in. I can’t see justifying trends and anomalies.

    Maybe you haven’t seen how the anomaly trick is done.

    Part 1

  122. *The planet is heating up because of human activity. But if it cools instead, hey, we predicted that, too.*

    That is not science, no matter how much they wish it was.

    Arguing incessantly that a prediction of all possible outcomes is in any way credible reminds me of someone… who was it …?

    Oh. Right. Admit it: you’re really Barrie Harrop, aren’t you?☺

  123. Dikran Marsupial

    When Hansen runs to the press talking about a “record global temperature” he is talking about a single data point, which is not supported by other sources.

  124. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 5:32 am

    You can recalculate a flawed data set as many times as you want, and come up with the same answer. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Agreed with. And not because Steven Goddard said it.

  125. jeez,

    Hansen is crowing about 0.08 degrees. Throwing coarse data trends of much lower resolution into the argument is meaningless in that context.

    Can’t have it both ways. Sorry.

  126. Dikran Marsupial says:
    August 18, 2010 at 6:12 am

    hence Hansen has a valid point in noting a possible record year in GISSTemp, even though it isn’t as likely to be a record in the other datasets.

    Actually this is the problem. James Hansen is on an island. With his temperature set is on an island. And he’s on an island with his science by referencing himself to validate it.

  127. Alexej Buergin says:
    August 18, 2010 at 12:32 am
    ” EFS_Junior says:
    August 17, 2010 at 3:46 pm
    the global temperature record (any global temperature record) will not produce the sharp peaks …”

    Nonsense. All you need is to take the monthly UAH data, copy them to Excel and make a graph. You will be surprised how sharp the peaks in 1998 and 2010 are. They remind me of a Bowie knife. A newly sharpened Bowie knife.
    (But of course you will change the scale of the ordinate, use -1000°C to +1000°C and get a straight line).
    ____________________________________________________________

    Taken totally out of context, SOP for the WUWT AAGW readership.

    Go back and reread what I did say in reference to frequency domain FFT’s.

    That’s where you separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, in terms of defining true cyclic behaviors, with narrow banded large amplitude spikes (ideally these spikes would be confined to a single frequency if the record is long enough and the freequency bins match the frequencies of the truly cyclic behaviors).

    And no, you will not see an FFT with narrow banded large amplitude spikes using any global mean temperature record. Ergo the dataset contains no artifacts of true cyclic behavior as the diurnal and annual cyclic behaviors at a point have been averaged out per the title of global mean temperature record. D’oh!

  128. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 18, 2010 at 7:02 am

    “And the point Steven Goddard is making about the short term is valid.”

    No, short term trends are unstable – they mostly just tell you what ENSO is doing and very little about the presence of a long term trend. Now if Steve Goddard can show me an interesting short term cooling trend that (like the long term trend) is statistically significant, then he would have a point. Note statistically insignificant just means “not enough data to be sure either way”, in which case, they shouldn’t be used as evidence. Sadly it doesn’t seem likely that this will happen as Steven apparently didn’t realise that his peak-to-peak method introduces a cooling bias into the analysis becase the 1998 El-Nino was a much stronger one than the one just passed. As I said, some self-skepticism is in order.

    If Hansen starts making assertions on the basis of short term trends, I’ll happily criticise him for it, but it is unlikely to happen as I would have though he knows better than that.

  129. Steven Goddard wrote:

    “The name of this article is : Is Hansen’s Recent Temperature Data Consistent?”

    You chose to use short term trends with which to make your argument. I have pointed out that short term trends are unstable and dominated by ENSO, especially when you pick 1998 (one of the strongest El-Nino on record) as your start date. Now if you were a competent scientist, you would go off and perform some experiments to quantify that bias and demonstrate (if you can) that it doesn’t affect your argument (or at least admit that you have not tested to see if there is a bias). As I said, some self-skepticism is in order.

  130. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 9:07 am

    “Are you joking? Hansen’s claim of a record temperature is based on a short term trend cherry picked to coincide with El Nino.”

    (i) an estimate of mean global temperature is not a short term trend, it is an average. There is a difference, if you are not aware of the difference, I suggest you leave the statistical analysis to those who do, at least until you have worked on your basic skills.

    (ii) it ought to be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that records usually ocurr due to a combination of factors, so you will probably find the majority of record warm years happen in El-Nino years. You are basically saying that nobody is allowed to talk about record high years because they tend to be El-Nino years, well duh!

    If you are interested in record years, a much more reliable (non-cherry-pickable as far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong) is to see how recently the ten warmest years ocurred (use a figure other than 10 if you like). Or look at warmest decades perhaps (no that is only one point on a decadal time series ;o)?

    Hansen is just pointing out this is likely to be a record year according to GISTEMP, no big deal, it is only really of interest to those argueing we are heading for global cooling, and there don’t seem many of those about.

  131. “stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Hansen’s standard 1.7-2.0 trend is based on cherry picking a start date of 1975. The long term GISS trend is 0.75.”

    There is a family of methods in statistics known as “change point detection”, demonstrate that 1975 is does not coincide with a statistical change point. You will find a very simple changepoint analysis here. Come up with a better one if you like, but if 1975 coincides with a genuine statistical changepoint, your accusation of cherry-picking is baseless.

  132. “Is Hansen’s Recent Temperature Data Consistent?”

    My conclusion is that it is not consistent once data from the coasts surrounding the pole, were interpolated towards the centre. This shows up very well comparing GISS with both satellite data sets from 1979. The higher temperatures guessed for the Arctic are changing the way the GISS behaves compared with the satellite.

    Compared with UAH

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise

    Comapred With RSS

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/normalise/plot/rss/from:1979/normalise

    Pre 2000 both were matching GIStemp much closer then the period after with the odd blip. After 2000 El Ninos and La Ninas show a warmer anomaly for GIStemp compared before with RSS and UAH. GIStemp shows a overall warmer bias over the past decade due to change in SST use and recent interpolated polar data. With there been no point(s) in centre of the Arctic, interpolated data has little meaning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation

    This is the key

    “In the mathematical subfield of numerical analysis, interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points.”

    There isn’t a range of discrete set of know data points for use in constructing new data points. This is down to there is no data used in the Arctic above 80N north. In climate science interpolation shouldn’t occur into different climate zones as these behave very differently.

  133. Dikran Marsupial

    Do you think that plummeting SSTs are not going to drag 2010 down before the year is over?

    No matter what happens in 2010, it will be far below Hansen’s forecasts.

  134. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

    “Do you think that plummeting SSTs are not going to drag 2010 down before the year is over?”

    Do I detect a trend here? On a previous thread, I pointed out an error in Stevens post, where he incorrectly implied that the 72 hour prediction horizon for weather forecasting has some bearing on climate modelling. It doesn’t, weather forecasting requires accurate knowledge of initial conditions (the lack of which is what causes the short prediction horizon), climate modelling doesn’t require accurate knowledge of initial conditions, as they work by simulating weather rather than forecasting it. On that thread Steven neither addressed that criticism, nor acknowledged it, and simply blustered along trying to ignore it. On this thread I pointed out that his short term trend analysis is (a) unstable and (b) biased due to starting the analysis window at an unusually strong El-Nino. Again, rather than address the criticism or acknowledge it, he instead blusters on about supposed errors in Hansens analysis, rather than have a good look at his own.

    It is rather a short term trend, as it is only two threads, but it is two out of two at the moment, and I don’t think Steven is giving much of an advert for skepticism.

  135. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

    “When I do “change point detection,” Tamino accuses me of cherry picking. Different standards apply for the other side.”

    Having a go at tamino is no defense of your argument, it is possible for both of you to be wrong. I am getting a bit bored with your inability to deal with specific criticisms; it isn’t science, and it certainly isn’t skepticism. If you were to take the time to address the criticism properly it would be you that gained most from it.

    “Anyway, the trend from 1910 to 1940 was nearly identical to the last 30 years.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    Yep, did something rather different between 1940(ish) and 1975 (ish) didn’t it? Guess what, that is what change point detection is for.

    “There is no justifiable reason not to include older data.”

    Yes there is if there is a physical reason to make a distinction between the two periods, for instance a reduction in aerosols. Climate forcings have not been constant since the start of the record, which is why it is perfectly reasonable to consider different sub-periods if there is a distinct difference in forcings.

  136. “You appear intent on dragging the conversation away from the topic of this article. I wonder why?”

    Because there is a flaw in your analysis. If there is a flaw in your analysis that affects the soundness of your conclusions regarding the topic of the article.

    It is called “science”, you make an assertion and explain your working, then others look at your analysis. If it is sound, they accept your conclusions. If there is a flaw they point it out and give you an opportunity to correct it before deciding whether to accept the conclusions or not. The ball is in your court, but the more you evade discussing the flaw, the less inclined I am to accept your conclusion.

  137. EFS_Junior says:
    August 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Nobody here says that cyclical change happens with absolute regularity, the problem was to find a simple rule how best to calculate a trend. If you want the trend of about the last decade, it may make no sense to use exactly a decade. It is better to calculate from peak temperature to peak temperature (El Niño to El Niño). Or to find a useful estimate for the time between El Niños, the mean of the last century is good enough; we need neither Fourier nor Wolfram.
    You use a computer to estimate with 95% probability that minimum ice extend will be between 4.25 an 5.25. I can do that in 10 seconds by just looking at the curves (but of course I get a mean of 5).

  138. The strong El Niño and the weak El Niño:
    That is what Bill Illis wrote about that over at the Blackboard:

    Bill Illis (Comment#47733) July 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    The 2009-10 El Nino should be influencing the June 2010 TLT anomaly by about 0.08C above the trend.

    The 1997-98 El Nino should have influenced the June 1998 TLT anomaly by about 0.10C above trend.

    So June 1998 (0.562C) versus June 2010 (0.436C) should be close to comparable as far as the ENSO is concerned.

  139. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 11:23 am

    “You are an interesting character.”

    Likewise, usually when someone has a flaw in their argument pointed out, they address it, sometimes they just ignore it and don’t respond. Responding without addressing or acknowledging the flaw, even when it is pointed out that their replies are merely evasion is very “interesting” behaviour IMHO. Sadly it is not a scientific behaviour, or one that lends itself to having yourself taken seriously, I have done my best to suggest a little self-skepticism on your part would do you no harm, but you can lead a horse to water…

    If you think that persistence in getting to the truth of the matter (in this case whether there is a flaw in your analysis) is a hallmark of an “interesting character”, you clearly don’t know many scientists!

  140. Dikran Marsupial

    You have taken the discussion in so many different directions, that I have no idea what you are talking about any more. Are you a lawyer per chance?

    What is it specifically that you are complaining about now?

  141. stevengoddard says:
    August 18, 2010 at 11:54 am

    “What is it specifically that you are complaining about now?”

    still the same flaw I pointed out from the start, namely short term trends are meaningless as they are dominated by ENSO, and that picking a start date on the very strong 1998 El-Nino biases the trends towards cooling. Note that the satelite data are more sensitive to ENSO than the station data, and the 1998 El-Nino was stronger than the most recent one, so there is reason to expect the satelite trends to be lower than the station data trends, because of their greater sensitivity to ENSO.

    There you are, I have pointed it out yet again, if you think the discussion is meandering, it has been meandering around that point and I have been trying to get you to address it.

  142. Dikran Marsupial

    If you believe that 1998 was warmer (as you just stated) then you must also believe that Hansen’s claim of a 2010 record is incorrect.

    Anything else I can help you with?

  143. Dikran Marsupial

    While I agree that short term ENSO effect trends and I’m sure everybody does, the point Steven is making is to try and address this situation. The problem here is also 30 years periods are also short trends influenced by the ENSO. There has to be a point of period that can be used to compare data sets to show how changes in the methods effect these. That why recent changes with GIStemp show a warming bias trend that generally none of the others do, reasoning in my last post.

    Not happy about peak to peak El Ninos which help eliminate some of this ENSO bias, why not include either and look at a 10 year period not influenced by these. There have been the strongest 2 El Ninos over recent decades so why not exclude both? Here is a decade period which just does that and still shows this same GIStemp warm bias.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/normalise/to:2010/trend/offset:-0.12/plot/gistemp/from:2000/normalise/to:2010/trend/offset:0.095/plot/uah/from:2000/normalise/to:2010/trend/offset:0.025/plot/rss/from:2000/normalise/to:2010/trend/offset:0.05

  144. ” Dikran Marsupial says:
    August 18, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    …short term trends are meaningless as they are dominated by ENSO, and that picking a start date on the very strong 1998 El-Nino biases the trends towards cooling.”

    Bias only if you do not end on an El Niño, too.
    12 years are not that short; long enough that according to IPCC world temperature should have gone up at least 0.2°C in this time. But it has not.
    Did you read Bill Illis’ comment on how much stronger the EN of 1998 was than the EN of 2010? What does Wolfram say about this?

Comments are closed.