Many readers here marvel at the scope of adjustments that NASA GISS performs on weather station data.
Along those lines, Michelle at Read N Say points out something interesting in Jim Hansen’s NASA page.
Below is an excerpt from her post:
This is his background copied from the official NASA GISS web page:
Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.
One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.
I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.
He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.
The above in italics is from Michelle’s post.
In Hansen’s defense, perhaps what he meant was something along the lines of trying to extract useful information from a noisy signal.
On the other hand, with a plethora of issues with GISS data, including adjustments to pristine data, failing to catch obviously corrupted data, significant errors in splicing and reporting pointed out by bloggers, and pronouncements from the man himself that such people are “jesters” and that vandals in England should be defended and energy company executives should be put on trial, one wonders if Hansen really wasn’t just speaking his mind.
Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
UPDATE 1/26 Lucia at The Blackboard wrote to Jim Hansen to get his take on it. Surprisingly, he emailed back.
Lucia,
This sentence refers to satellite measurements. You could look at the report “Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks”, which is available from my office — but you could also find several papers that I wrote in the early 1990s if you go to www.giss.nasa.gov, then Publications, Authors, my name.
Jim Hansen
But now a new question arises. Why doesn’t then GISS embrace satellite measurements?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Influence the nature of the measurements obtained.” How do you go about influencing something fundamental like a nature? Does he mean make it up like Al Gore said so that people act? Surely we’d have more chance with a true target and an honest shot.
Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
I assume the excitement jim Hansen talks about when comparing theory with data occurs only when they correlate. If this excitement is what makes all his other stuff worth it that puts a lot of pressure on achieving correlation between his theory and the data.
I have never defended the man before, but I believe that he is trying to say this:
The satellites are typically designed and operated for purposes not entirely commensurate with the collection of the kinds of planetary atmosphere data that he is looking for. He has to work with data that are not ideally suited to the task (proxy data, data-taking intervals that don’t match up with the diurnal cycle, data that is available only when other people aren’t using the instrument for something else,). Also in the specification of requirements for new instruments, his needs are competing with the needs of other investigators who are interested in completely different things.
But I admit that it could also reveal something about his state of mind, i.e. his “inner book-cooker”.
I believe that these insights into Jim Hansen’s methods and also the hysterical nature of some of his promoters is what is causing the disbelief among the populace.
The increasing drumbeat of article after article trying to press AGW into our subconscious has made many realize that we have become the target of a climate crusade. Some of the ranting and raving of the scientist/crusaders has become almost laughable as they see the futility of their task. I hope that this increasingly hopeless crusade of climate propaganda does not devolve into an inquisition.
Smokey (10:29:16) : wrote
Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Zorita et al., (from a previous thread) seem to be pretty handy with those kinds of statistics:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
Incidentally, when I typed my one word response “infantile” regarding that paper, I regretted not typing “Infantile – even Tamino would cringe upon reading that paper”. Then, I few days later, I went over there to see if he had indeed made any comments on it. He supported it. That was the last time on that site for me.
I haven’t counted the data points, or flipped the coins, but I’m guessing it’s probably a one in two to the power 30 or more chance that Hansen [snip – let’s not use that term here, Anthony].
the hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained.
this could mean to stop reading the rural temps.
Anthony we need to process the rated stations you have, you can add more stations later.
TX Tim
Jeff ID? we are out of time.
The word ‘INFLUENCE’ is a Freudian giveaway.
He should have said ‘INTERPRET’. However he previously uses the word ‘interpret ‘ correctly so one must assume he realises what he is saying.
Later he says ‘understanding global changes that ARE occurring’. Another Freudian slip. He should have said ‘that MAY BE occurring’.
The fact is that he appears to first decide on the changes that ARE occurring and then seeks to INFLUENCE the results of data collection.
He also says:
“that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that WILL result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
He should have said ‘MAY result’ so in his ‘excitement’ he has clearly made the subjective decision that human input WILL cause changes and he seeks to exert ‘influence’ to show that the data confirms his predetermined conclusion.
Is that the way a scientist is supposed to operate ?
I think his statement refers to the actual mechanics or methods of obtaining measurements. At the time this was probably (?) altruistic.
Tim L – working on it.
Another interesting item in Hansen’s bio page is this:
“One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth.”
So why then is he still puzting around trying to adjust an obviously corrupted (at the measurement level) surface temperature data set when he thinks satellite data is of particular interest?
As someone who is a student of the English language rather than a scientist I am intrigued by two things:
First, yes – the idea of “influencing the nature” of the data, which seems to me a polite way of saying “fiddling the figures”‘
Second, the idea that “the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.” Which would seem to beg the question somewhat. I would have thought that the basis of planetary research ought initially to be to find out whether changes to the atmospheric composition *are* anthropogenic before you go on to study climatic changes which may, or equally likely may not, arise therefrom.
I am perfectly happy to subscribe to the idea of AGW when someone actually proves it to be a) possible; b) plausible; c) actually happening!
Smokey – Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Have you got this blink chart the wrong way round? It seems to show the adjustments are all up for old temperatures with no adjustment for recent ones
ATTN: Anthony
I’m looking at the March 1901 USHCN record from Telluride Co, and the temperatures for Tmin are shown as whole numbers with an implied error of +/- 1 deg F. The computed mean is shown as 10.87097. Now what is that nonsense? It implies the therometer is measuring temp to +/-0.00001 deg F. Why isn’ the computed mean shown as 11 deg F
On the graph the curve lies mostly between +/- 0.5 deg C , that is within measurement error. I would conclude that there has been little change if any in the mean temp. Please explain.
BTW, I counted at least 7 errors in this record, e.g, -1 should be 11, -5 should be 15 and -3 should be 13. For the Dec 1901 record I counted about 10 errors. Don’t these records under go data quality checking? How can these USCHN records be trusted?
[snip]
The following is an excerpt from Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005), which can be read on-line at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11175.
It is an unsettling fact that Holdren is a bona fide member of the new administration. That does not send a chill up my leg, but it does send a chill up my back and cause the hair on my neck to stand-up.
————————————————————-
Methods for Developing Emissions Scenarios
Most emissions scenarios are developed using the IPAT model (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971) in which environmental impact is the result of a multiplication of three driving forces: population, affluence per person, and technological impact per unit of affluence. When applied to greenhouse gas emissions, the impact is the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, while the technological factor is the rate of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). The IPAT model has a long history in environmental studies, and there has been much debate over whether it is the proper approach (Chertow, 2001). As a purely mathematical multiplicative identity, it must yield correct emissions rates if all of the PAT factors are well known.
That blink comparator is interesting. At first I thought the recent high temperatures were simply shifting the average up which would have the effect of making the anomoly go downward in earlier years. But the 1880 to 1890 timeframe shows an upward change between the 1999 graph and the 2008 graph. Does Hansen actually detail his adjustment methodolgy anywhere?
As a scienctist myself, I may give him a pass on the ill-formed sentence containing “influence”
However, the quite that struck me was:
“that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.”
Note here he says that anthropogenic changes *WILL* result in climate change. He is obviously starting from that position. A major pitfall in any science research is to get too wedded to your pet theories. From what I have read from him, to even consider other data is something is not willing to do. That’s when de stopped doing science.
sorry for the typos, should be ‘scientist’ and last sentence ‘he’ instead of ‘de’
I’m having a hard time with the term “nature”.
“nature of a measurement obtained”?
By “nature”, maybe he means physical property, e.g. time, weight, mass, length, temperature etc. Or maybe “accuracy”.
No matter, one evaluates and assesses obtained measurements. One certainly does not influence their nature. That to me means tampering, manipulating, coaxing, fudging, etc.
Just the fact that he uses the term “nature of the measurements” shows he has very poor scientific communication skills. I don’t think there’s a scientist in the world who would know what he means with this gibberish.
Any scientists here who do?
Still,
I can’t believe the guy would be so off his rocker as to openly admit he manipulates data.
He uses really lousy technical communication. Such a poor communicator ought not be at the Director level of any major scientific facility.
Let’s see now…
He has already rewritten temperature records, climate records.
Oh!
Soon he’ll be rewriting his bio!
Download it NOW before it disappears!
This is an interesting subject.
In regard to the measuring of temperatures however I am am convinced that we should standardize the instrumentation, set strict rules to the location and position of the equipment in relation to buildings, parking lots etc. and simply measure the temp without any correction.
The step from correction to manipulation and from manipulation to corruption is….
rather small.
I once bookmarked WUWT with the article about introducing ISO standards for measurements so I am triggered to the subject of basic standards for measurements every time I open this site.
I think Anthony will agree with me for 100% in regard to tis subject otherwise there would not be any reason to make an inspection round to verify weather the stations.
Colin Aldridge (11:23:04) :
“Smokey – Amazingly, most, if not all of Hansen’s adjustments result in what looks like increasing temperatures. What are the odds, eh? click
Have you got this blink chart the wrong way round? It seems to show the adjustments are all up for old temperatures with no adjustment for recent ones”
Colin, maybe it has been his intention to create a steeper graph in order to create a strong visual increase of temp in order to keep the AGW doctrine based on rising CO2 levels alive.
I personally am getting sick and tired of all the CO2 talk.
CO2 is not a dominant warming factor.
We have to look at other mechanisms which is why the recent article about IGR is so interesting.
To be fair, he could have meant” “Influencing WHAT measurement methods are used and what SPECIFIC measurements are taken” when he said “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained.” What experiments are done during a government funded project is largely political. HST, for example, can only accommodate so many instruments and, similarly, the shuttle. The process of deciding who gets to fly has many similarities to sausage making.
“Such data, appropriately analyzed …” is almost ALWAYS true: most calculations yield the right answer when done correctly. Its a tautological filler statement.
I often see similar language in proposals. I don’t like Hansen all that much but I think it unfair to read too much into the stilted idioms of governmentese. FWIW, I don’t think he’s intentionally dishonest to the point of making cynically blatant confessions. In fact, I don’t think he’s dishonest at all. — it’s just that he can’t seem to separate his work from his biases.
There is one other remark I would like to make.
I wonder if a character like Hanson is the right man on the right place.
Here you have a scientist with a mission in control of (manipulative data)?
It’s is like having a bank robber in charge of a bank.
So not only certify the procedures, but also the people.
Scott R, The trouble with your argument is, much of his raw data comes from satellites that are specifically and solely used for monitoring the climate. So that satellite data IS the exact raw data he needs. He just fails to show HOW he “appropriately analyses” that raw data to consistently get results that show on-going and increasing global heating from raw data that shows on-going cooling.
Well done for being generous and looking for a positive message though. That is so much more than he would be to the people he disagrees with.