Guest post by John A.
This is a shout-out to a fascinating post by Pat Frank on Jeff Id’s blog on the mysterious changes to climate history coming from James Hansen’s GISS dataset. Here’s how Pat describes it:
I’ve just had a guest post on Jeffid’s the Air Vent, showing that between 1988 and 2010 there is a strange mutability in the trend of global air temp as produced by GISS, under Jim Hansen’s by-line.
Folks here might be interested. According to GISS, in 1988 the early 20th century warmed at about the same rate as the late 20th century. By 1999, the late 20th century warmed 2.3 times faster, increasing to 2.8 times faster by 2010.
This increase in rate wasn’t due to an accelerating late 20th century trend. It’s mostly due to modifications of the 1880-1920 record.
Do the systematic changes show an increasingly sophisticated understanding of early 20th century natural variability? A better perception, perhaps, of UHI effects or station site inhomogeneities? None of that seems likely.
Rather, it seems more likely that anthropogenic climate change has much more to do with the climate data than it does with the climate itself.
Well worth a read.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh dear . . . .
I’ve always worried more about a catastrophic anthropogenic effect upon climate data than upon climate itself. The blame, however, lies not only upon GISS with its bizzare “homogenizations,” but upon the archive keepers at NCDC, as well. Cooling the earliest data and other unjustifiable, trend-manufacturing “adjustments” artificially reduce the coherence between neighboring station records–a grave impediment to serious analysis of variability.
Based on what he has done, should Hansen be described as a “protagonist” or is there another more descriptive term? I find that alarmist is certainly less derogatory than “denier,” a term which we all know is used to associate skeptics with Holocaust deniers.
Big surprise there.
Wow, just wow!
The GISS dataset has been systematically altered so that past temperatures have been adjusted downwards during periods of warming, and upwards during periods of cooling. I can think of no scientific reason whatsoever that could possibly justify this.
As Pat Frank points out, even though the adjustments are small, the impact is huge because it suppresses the range of (presumably) natural variability that has occurred in the past, making any changes that have happened recently, or may happen in the future appear far more significant than they probably are.
How much of a problem can Global Warming really be if they have to resort to this kind of chicanery?
Climate anthropogenic data skewing? CADS?
sorry, only cherry picking
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=304859340004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=207431280000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Who knew “data” was so malleable?
Reminds me of…
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
– James Lovelock, March 2010
Deleting and changing historical data invites speculation that fraud is occurring. This is no different than carrying two sets of books. One for the government, the other based on reality.
The consequence is that all GCM’s are now validated against cooked historical records. If i were a GCM programmer on the government dole, i would now know that my attempts at creating a realistic climate model are doomed; only cooked GCM’s will survive the validation.
Must be a really nice place to work. But i think all honest people left that area long ago anyway.
The stupid efforts of the Aust Government-just who are these people representing?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8248531/carbon-price-backed-by-lower-house
The Gillard government’s bid to introduce a carbon tax has been boosted with the lower house of parliament backing the idea of a carbon price.
Labor MP Stephen Jones MP moved a motion calling on the House of Representatives to acknowledge a carbon price as an “essential step in reducing carbon pollution”.
It also noted the efforts already under way by government and business in developing green jobs.
Independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor and Australian Greens MP Adam Bandt, backed the motion that passed the lower house on Thursday night.
The coalition and independent Bob Katter voted against the motion that passed 74 votes to 72.
WA independent Tony Crook was absent from the vote, but has previously indicated he is open to supporting the carbon tax that Labor wants in place by mid 2012.
The government needs the support of at least four crossbenchers to get the measure through the lower house of parliament.
I like the designation ‘climate change scientist’.
It’s like fighting back using captured enemy weapons.
The correct title for James Hansen is “Climate Falsifier”
His actions are equivalent to a mining promoter who salts the ore pile to dupe investors. Back in the day, that would boost sales of tar and feathers.
This is known as “GISStification”
All that GISS and other data manipulators are going to accomplish is to drive the politicians that fund the corrupt science out of office. Things run downhill, especially budget lawnmowers. I have to admit, they (climate change beaurocracies) are juicy targets of pure waste.
“It’s mostly due to [downward] modifications of the 1880-1920 record.”
I thought that “this” was the trick that became exposed by the “hacked” emails.
Am I correct with this belief..?
db..
How many of the 80 CRN1 stations of the surface stations were extant in 1880?
1) Calibrate each of those stations to UAH for all available UAH years.
2) Use the calibrations to reach into the past.
This is my favourite ‘after cleaning adjustment’ by GISS.
De Bilt is the only w/s GISS use from Holland. Check this out.
Raw data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Now the adjusted temperatures.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
No wonder we’re warming.
Sort of related: CNN Opinion. Climate change is responsible for the Mississippi flooding this year. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/kemp.mississippi.river/index.html?hpt=Sbin
I submit that term “anthropogenic climate change” is commonly improperly defined, it should be defined as:
“apparent changes in the climate due to the effects of human adjustments on the data”
Rather than the conventional understanding that the term refers to the effects of human activities on the climate.
It is not the weather or the climate that are changing, it is only the data and its manipulations which are changing.
Larry
Hey, if you can’t match the Global Climate Model to the data…
Well can’t say I’m surprised . . . if they can disappeared the MWP, a simple lowering of some temperatures is easily within the capability of even these Climate Data Changing Scientists.
Maybe its time to defund GISS.
Thats normal operation for climatology. Beat the data until it conforms with original concept.