How GISS creates long term Antarctic warming

I see the vertical axis is “Temperature Anomaly”, what’s the real temperature? Surely Base Orcadas will be much warmer, being surrounded by sea.

I notice there isn’t much slope to any of the three series in themselves. The trend only appears when you plot all three together and could well be due to differences in the mean lines of each series.

They could have got an even bigger anomaly by using a station in Cape Town.
I expect that GISS did not expect anyone to check. Since sea ice in the Antarctic has increased I would expect a definite negative temperature anomaly. I expect your eyes will now be concentrated on GISS claims like never before.
Please keep us posted.

Out and Out Fraud. No other way of putting it, heads should roll for this. GISS needs root and branch clean out.No place for data manipulation or for data “accountancy” sack and revoke their pensions

Can you plot the full record of the Base Orcadas and the combined 1945-1955 peninsula stations, together with the mainland Antarctic stations only, up to current? That should give some idea of the difference in trends between the different latitudes…

And we just had Mosh pontificating in the past few days at Dr.Judith Curry’s website that GISS record is the truest record and that HADCRUT 4 has a lot of errors and that he does not know why that is being used for science. See below link
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258483
I wonder if he’ll come here to justify this manipulation and falsehood of GISS.

“The 1904-44 temperatures come from a single station – Base Orcadas in the South Orkneys northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula.”
That kind of extrapolation from far away is even extra invalid in the case of Antarctica.
Antarctica is a special situation where the ice is so pure as to be whiter than clouds. High-albedo shading, reflective clouds, ordinarily cooling, instead warm Antarctica. A reduction in cloud cover which would relatively warm other landmasses or the ocean can instead cool Antarctica.
The major distinction is illustrated in the following image, where, in the example of 1982 to 2004, there was simultaneously cooling over the ice and yet warming over the ocean a moderate number of miles away:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
The reason for the sharpness of the difference? Temperature trends in Antarctica, like temperature trends elsewhere and “global warming,” are caused in large part by changes in average cloud cover (influenced by changes in cosmic ray flux, in turn driven by variation in solar activity and the interplanetary magnetic field which deflects many GCRs).
As seen by comparison of the preceding with the plot at http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/antarctica_temp_trends4.png?w=614 , Base Orcadas is right out way in the ocean (on a tiny island) where it would show warming during the 1982 to 2004 period despite Antarctica as a whole cooling during that period. Likewise, what temperature change Base Orcadas showed over the 1904 to 1944 period would be utterly different than the temperature change in Antarctica meanwhile.
Decades of Antarctica having temperature trends different from the bulk of the rest of the world are illustrated, with the reason explained, within http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
With apologies for a graph that had to be rotated to make it more readily readable, actual Antarctic temperatures over the past several centuries, as reconstructed by Thamban et al. 2011, are shown in http://s12.postimage.org/4w8ovbnx9/antarctemp.jpg
As one sees if comparing to global average temperatures (Loethle 2007 reconstruction) meanwhile, as shown as one of the plots within http://s8.postimage.org/nz4ionvit/suntemp0.jpg (click to enlarge), Antarctic temperature trends over the decades and centuries very much differ from elsewhere. Antarctic ice temperature trends are nothing like those of Base Orcadas on an island way out out in the ocean of different surrounding albedo.

It would appear that GISS is using the”Splice-O-Matic” tool (by Ronco) to put dissimilar records together.

From wayne Job on October 22, 2012 at 2:07 am:

This GISS mob are clever little vegemites…

So they’re at least good for spreading on sandwiches?
GISS likes to spread around the taxpayer “bread”, usually among themselves. Instead taxpayers should be spreading GISS on bread? What a Revolutionary concept!

Worth reading the comments on Tallbloke’s site.

Base Orcadas.
Started in 1904. Were the instruments accurate back then?
How old was the measuring instruments when installed?
It looks as if GISS threw in a huge correction for a more northerly location of Base O.

tallbloke says
In my view there is no single sine wave solution.
henry says
true there could be a few more, but I think this one is the more important one, causing a clear weather cycle, more wet during cooling and more dry during warming.
Where do you you think the blue line (actual measured) must go but further down south? The fit I finally chose is in fact the most modest one giving me the lowest possible rate of cooling. If I use any other fit I get much higher cooling rates. Remember that the total warming/cooling rate over the whole of this 88 year cycle is 0.0 K per year….
I also think that the correlation of my sine wave
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
with the dates of the level of Nile flooding is stunning.
I thought you would be interested as W.Arnold thought that that 100 year weather cycle must be related to the movement of the planets.

They should rename GISS to GIGO.

My grandmother taught me that a man with one watch has a good idea of what time it is, and a man with two watches is never sure what time it is. Now I think we can add that a man with three watches can claim it is whatever time he wants it to be.

It seems the general philosophy of pro-AGW climate science is that ‘you can be imaginative in how you manipulate the data, so long as it gives the ‘right’ answer.’
If it gives the ‘wrong’ answer, then bin it to avoid accusations of fraud or denialism.
Its very much like a policeman (or woman) collecting evidence for a murder when he (or she) already knows who done it. Its ok to fix the evidence to make sure you get the right man (…or woman).

Thank you everyone for you comments. I’ll respond as time permits.
But in the meantime another skeleton has fallen out of the closet. In a comment above Tallbloke posted some graphs from Jostemikk, and I reproduce one of them here:
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1003.0;attach=3082;image
This graph shows that there are in fact two temperature records in the South Orkneys – Laurie Island and Louise Island, which is something I didn’t know when I wrote the post. Laurie Island, which shows warming, is the one that GISS and just about everyone else uses as “Base Orcadas”. Louise Island, which doesn’t show warming, appears as “Base Orcadas” only in the KNMI “adjusted” GHCN data base, I suspect by mistake.
Another graph posted by Tallbloke in an earlier comment further shows that the Laurie Island record, the one that GISS uses, contains a large artificial discontinuity in 1951 that adds maybe 1.5C of overall warming.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg
Here’s how the Laurie Island and Louise Island records compare when this discontinuity is removed.
http://oi49.tinypic.com/3145o52.jpg
Not perfect, but I think good enough to show a) that the Laurie Island record is indeed warming-biased and b) that there’s been no significant warming in the South Orkneys since 1900.
So it seems that not only did GISS base all of its Antarctic series before 1945 on a demonstrably contaminated record from a station located miles outside the Antarctic, it also ignored an uncontaminated record sitting right next door.

vukcevic said
“OT
6 years jail sentence each for the Italian scientists who failed to predict the earthquake.
Climate scientists watch out!”
Really ?!
Can anyone arrange a Climate Team conference in Italy for Ben Santer, Mike Mann, James Hansen, Lubchenko, et al.

If Louise Island is on the Antarctic Peninsula and not on South Orkney I guess I’d better apologize to GISS for accusing them of something they didn’t do.
But it’s still curious that no one uses the Louise Island record. It’s only one in the Antarctic Peninsula that goes back close to the turn of the century and as far as I can see there’s nothing wrong with it, except of course that it doesn’t show any warming.

Henry Clark says:
October 22, 2012 at 4:10 am
Antarctica is a special situation where the ice is so pure as to be whiter than clouds. High-albedo shading, reflective clouds, ordinarily cooling, instead warm Antarctica. A reduction in cloud cover which would relatively warm other landmasses or the ocean can instead cool Antarctica.
This insight about whiter-than-white Antarctic snow with greater albedo than clouds, is fascinating and opens up many intriuging questions.
– It underlines a central controlling role for cloud in climate and global temperatures, not only at the equator and the ITCZ, but all the way to the poles;
– it adds plausibility to the hypothesis by Tzedakis and others that interglacial intervals terminate after a period of reciprocal north-south glaciation, called the “bipolar seesaw”
– it has major nonlinear-chaotic pattern implications. The classic scenario identified by Alan Turing for biological pattern formation includes a simple model such as: one signal chemical promotes growth at short range, a second signal chemical inhibits growth at long range. Mix up their two effects and the result is emergent complexity. So a fat big Antarctica at the bottom of the world respnding in the opposite direction to global cloud-driven temperature trends could have profound influence on spatio-temporal climate and temperature patterns (but I have no idea what kind of influence). It could act to stabilise attractors in certain regimes.

If they can use an island 3,300km from the South Pole for anomalies for the Antarctica then they can use Stockholm for the Arctic.

I am VERY happy that the Talkshop has been reclassified OUT of the Transcendent Rant category. A good move for all concerned.

I’m missing information here. What happens now? When will this trend be corrected, if ever?

It’s amazing the lucky coincidences the agw folks get. It turns out that in the same year they get the new stations in Antarctica the temperature on the mainland spikes 3C in that year. How coincidental because without that spike the record might look flat. It also is very convenient that Antarctica is such a large land mass that including such a spike at 1945 helps with that thorny problem of the decline in temperatures between 1945-1975. Placed right in the middle this helps a lot to lift those temps to give the nice smooth upward graph for worldwide temps that matches the models much better. Lucky thing that Antarctica decided to turn blast furnace on at 1945. SARCASM OFF.