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?
Joseph: Thanks for the compliment in your comment. My favorite part of that post was finding what appeared to be a 0.3 deg C discontinuity (step change) in either the HADCRUT or the HADSST-based NINO3.4 SST anomaly data (or both) around 1903/04.
http://i43.tinypic.com/rl01nb.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/fnhhrd.jpg
And for those wondering what the (red) Reproduction curve is, it’s a scaled running total of NINO3.4 SST anomalies that have been adjusted for solar, volcanic aerosols, and “ENSO Noise”.
Needless to say, I was very pleased with how well that reproduction turned out.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
I hope to have the second part written up today. The graphs are done. Just have to provide the narrative for them.
No one can honestly look at the way GISS adjusts historical temperatures to better make their record match their theory, and not conclude that this is fraud. That GISS does not discard surface stations that are badly sited can be chalked up to incompetence or laziness, but the adjustments scream duplicity.
Hansen threw aside science for advocacy a long time ago. He’s paving a road to hell for us with his good intentions, and wasting trillions doing it.
Because of the current cooling trend, this fraud is being unmasked many years earlier than it otherwise would have been. What’s being exposed makes me nauseous.
Mike Jonas,
I suspect that changes in ocean heat output drive albedo changes via cloud quantities.
If oceans are in a warming phase then overall the air will warm so that it can hold more water vapour and cloud amounts will decline.
If in a cooling phase then the air will cool and can hold less water as vapour hence more clouds.
When ocean output is stable the albedo will be stable. Clouds only increase or decrease when a change is in progress because after a period of stability condensation matches evaporation again so cloud quantities stop increasing or decreasing.
That still leaves room for Svensmark but I think the cosmic ray influence if any will be a smaller player than changes in ocean energy output.
“On the same subject, if data for a drug approval was collected and documented as badly as temperature data appears to be collected and massaged (with no regulatory control, or even transparency), the drug would not be approved, and heads would roll for the abject sloppiness.”
OT but when that chemical was called Aspartame, then it did get approval. Sorry to nitpick. I accept your argument none-the-less.
I accept that Hansen is frustrated with not having enough data for his own specific needs. But everyone else has the same data to work with. IF he took an independent, unbiased view, then he might analyse the data objectively and report the information that is produced. Hansen is clearly deeply biased by his beliefs and that is making it more difficult for him to get the “answers” that he is looking for. This is why his department has been found out so many times using false and flawed data to back up their reports of continuing and accelerating heating, contrary to what the latest raw data suggests…
I can’t read Hansen’s mind, nor am I ordinarily one to defend him, but this smacks of a beat-up.
To me this could mean nothing more than trying to influence the kinds of sensors that are installed in satellites. There’s limited space, limited budget, and every scientist (understandably) thinks their measurements are the most important.
Hansen is a deeply disturbed, highly effective, charlatan.
Stephen Wilde has it asolutely right back at (11:11:32) when he says this is a Freudian giveaway. This is not some off the cuff remark, but his personal credo, a document anyone would naturally craft with particular care. Having already used the word “interpret” once, it would be natural to hunt around for a synonym. By making this spectacular unconscious admission, he then opens the way to expressing all that follows as assertions of facts instead of hypotheses. The true meaning of this Freudian slip is something like:- “Look, I’ve admitted what I’m doing in the most public fashion, so now I can say anything I like”.
I know this is all wildly ad hominem, but we’re talking politics, not science, and exploration of motives is therefore valid and necessary.
I also agree that Hansen should be “retired.”
Up until 2007 I trusted NOAA and NASA, and watched with alarm as temperatures were reported as “warmest month” and “warmest year.” (I like to believe I am a member of an informed public, and do not take kindly to being misinformed, whether it is about weapons in Iraq, or temperatures in 1901.)
In the summer of 2007 an obscure talk-show alerted me to an article in the Toronto Star, and the article in turn alerted me to the “Climate Audit” site. This was around the time Hansen “readjusted” his “adjusted” figures, and 1998 abruptly wasn’t the “warmest” year. This was before the figures were re-readjusted, and 1998 became “warmest” again.
Up to that point I had no idea, from press releases, that data was being “adjusted.” I felt data was data, and that data spoke for itself. Perhaps naively, I felt the data that the public was given was pure, and all interpretations and “spin” occurred after the pure data was released.
Once I became aware the data released to the public was “adjusted,” my opinion of Hansen sank to a level so low I can’t speak it. I have tried to speak my low opinion, but I always get snipped.
Therefore I am not going to speak of Hansen. I am going to speak theory, and about a hypothetical scientist.
Now, if you suppose the collection of data involves agreed-upon “laws,” wouldn’t a scientist who broke those “laws” be committing ( by definition)a “crime?” And wouldn’t this make the scientist (again by definition) a “criminal?”
If the “crime” involved little things, such as .05 degrees, you might call it a “petty crime,” but if the “crime” involved trillions upon trillions of dollars, you might call it a “crime against humanity.”
Lastly, would not a person who goes along with such a “crime” be (once again by definition,) an “accomplice?” (The amazing thing is that such a person might be utterly blind to the fact they are “an accomplice to a crime against humanity,” and instead think they were “saving the world.”)
I am only speaking theory here, and only about a hypothetical scientist.
However I will state that, in actual fact, in the fall of 2007, when I first ventured the suggestion that NOAA and NASA data might be fudged, and Global Warming might not be as extreme as the public was told it was, I was told, by people I respect, that I myself was an “accomplice” to Big Oil, and that I was “committing a crime against humanity.”
I confess to being something of a hot-head, and my reply to such people, even people I respected, was laced with language worthy of snipping.
I must say I admire the moderators of this site, (and also the Climate Audit and Accuweather sites,) for keeping hot-heads like myself under control, and keeping dignity in the discussions.
However I do believe the discussion about Global Warming is bound to become more heated (pun) before we are done with it. And the one individual who is most responsible for enflaming things is Hansen himself. Therefore he should retire, for the good of NASA, the USA, the World, and Science in general.
Ken Hall (03:46:07) :
“On the same subject, if data for a drug approval was collected and documented as badly as temperature data appears to be collected and massaged (with no regulatory control, or even transparency), the drug would not be approved, and heads would roll for the abject sloppiness.”
OT but when that chemical was called Aspartame, then it did get approval. Sorry to nitpick. I accept your argument none-the-less.
———————————————-
I won’t argue with that, except to say that, although FDA-regulated, an artificial sweetener is technically not a drug.
Did you also know that the company that made it was taking forever to get it on the market (I actually had a close connection to the company back then), but upon hiring a new CEO and Chairman (if I’m recalling the positions correctly) things seemed to go a lot faster ?? I’m not suggesting that there was any impropriety there, but there was definitely an increase in the “personality quotient”, shall we say. The individual they brought in was Donald Rumsfeld !!
Philip McDaniel — A more correct concept would be ‘…trying to understand the climate changes on earth and whether or not anthropogenic changes influence those changes.’
G Alston – “Nonsense. OBVIOUSLY humans alter their environment, and have done so with increasing ability for the past 10,000 years.”
Looks like you missed the statement completely. Notice the words CLIMATE CHANGES? No one disputes whether humans have altered their environment or not. The question really is, ‘have environmental changes affected the global climate and if so, by how much?’
To so answer the question one first has to understand climate changes. To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science. The statement as I postulated it originally IS a scientific question. What Hanson stated is not.
G Alston – “Unless of course you’re suggesting (laughably) that the effects of deforesting an entire continent (Europe) is something that could never be quantified (just for one example.)”
Which deforesting event are you referring to? The one that occurred during the time of the Roman Empire or the one that occurred just prior to the Industrial Revolution? And what effect to you believe that had on the world’s climate?
G Alston – “Can’t we simply be skeptical that Hansen is right? It[sic] it truly necessary to pillory the man for his every utterence[sic]?”
““Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.”
I am not pillorying Hansen. His derangement speaks for itself.
David Corcoran (03:04:23) :
No one can honestly look at the way GISS adjusts historical temperatures to better make their record match their theory, and not conclude that this is fraud.
So you assert not only that Hansen is a fraudster but that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest!
Do you assume that the folks at Hadley and RSS are also fraudsters, since there is so little divergence in their trends? –
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dzp3n6
UAH shows the least warming there and is clearly the most divergent – does that make them the only honest ones?
You are aware, I presume, that all satellite analysis makes adjustments to measurements in generating a temperature record? Does that make them all fraudsters in your view?
Check Lucia’s site. She actually asked Hansen what he meant
Simon Evans (07:33:29) :
You are aware, I presume, that all satellite analysis makes adjustments to measurements in generating a temperature record? Does that make them all fraudsters in your view?
From Hansen: “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
As hard as I try to understand his comment as “influence the instrumentation used,” or “influence the kind of data collected” … that isn’t what he said. I, like many on this forum, have a problem when the nature of the “adjustment” is kept secret. His comment isn’t reassuring.
Furthermore, Hansen’s professional background is in Astronomy. He is, or should be, keenly aware of the importance of presenting experimental setup and conditions, assumptions and methodology in analysis, and making raw data available for independent review.
I don’t know whether human activity is leading to climate warming over and above that which is natural. I will make two assertions:
1. Those who do assert AGW have not provided convincing data in any sort of conclusive manner. (I.e. setup, collection, analysis, etc. details.)
2. I, personally, do not consider Hansen a fraud because I disagree with him. I, personally, consider his behaviour fraudulant because he adamantly refuses to follow the most basic principles of ethical scientific behavior, while tossing ad hominum attacks at those who call his methods and conclusions into question.
Perhaps I’m unfair to him. Perhaps I’ve simply picked the wrong search terms or failed to follow the right set of links. Perhaps you could post links to:
1. Hansen’s description of what data he uses and his rationale for selecting it; what data he omits and his rationale for omitting it; and his discussion of the possible errors eliminated and introduced because of his choices.
2. Hansen’s posted data base of the raw data used as input for his analysis.
3. Hansen’s description of analysis approach, including assumptions.
Please, no argumentation. Just a simple set of links that allow me to look at what the man has done, evaluate it, and reconsider my opinion.
Couldn’t the problem below simply solved by Cern scientists adjusting their models so this problem goes away? If the data is not matching what they expected their models to predict, why aren’t they adjusting their data?
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948: “On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC”
“There is absolutely, positively, definitely no chance of the LHC destroying the planet when it eventually switches on some time later this year. Right?
Err, yep. And yet a few niggling doubts are persuading some scientists to run through their figures again. And the new calculations are throwing up some surprises.
One potential method of destruction is that the LHC will create tiny black holes that could swallow everything in their path including the planet. In 2002, Roberto Casadio at the Universita di Bologna in Italy and a few pals reassured the world that this was not possible because the black holes would decay before they got the chance to do any damage.
Now they’re not so sure. The question is not simply how quickly a mini-black hole decays but whether this decay always outpaces any growth.
Casadio have reworked the figures and now say that: ” the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible.”
Does not seem possible? That’s not the unequivocal reassurance that particle physicists have been giving us up till now.
What’s more, the new calculations throw up a tricky new prediction. In the past, it had always been assumed that black holes would decay in the blink of an eye.
Not any more. Casadio and co say: “the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly ≫ 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models”
Whoa, let’s have that again: these mini black holes will be hanging around for seconds, possibly minutes?”
At the CA, there was an article “Slicing the Czech salami”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2017
about what the GISS algorithms are doing with missing values in two scribal versions of the same record for Czech station Praha-Libus instead of plainly and simply combining it. A warming about 0.1 C was produced. The station belongs to the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute:
http://wikimapia.org/3561668/cs/Meteorologick%C3%A1-observato%C5%99-Praha-Libu%C5%A1-11520
There’s no need to make the adjustments from scribal versions of GHCN as a homogenized official result can be obtained. Also other Czech stations are mostly institution-kept and surveyed in various studies and theses. If they are homogenized and/or adjusted in these studies, then with knowledge about their relationships to other stations and history. Surely the situation is similar in other developed countries, so why not to give the GHCN a thorough revision, based on history and local research, asking the respective national institutions?
Simon Evans,
No-one has demonstrated that the satellite data is adjusted in such a way to show a smooth trend up or down. But the blink comparator in the article above is damning of GISSs adjustments to the historical record. It reminds me of the “throbbing” memo, that fake National Guard memo that Dan Rather produced just before the 2004 US presidential election. I saw that the use of Microsoft Word style kerning in 1972, the conclusion of deliberate fraud was obvious. I used to work in printing.
GISS tracks higher than Hadley or RSS last I checked, and is typically the highest of the four. And RSS tracks much more closely with UAH than with GISS.
HadCRUT is still lower than GISS, but I’ll have to analyze Hadley’s record against GISS before saying more.
John W. (09:05:38) :
Well said.
John W.,
Please, no argumentation. Just a simple set of links that allow me to look at what the man has done, evaluate it, and reconsider my opinion.
Whatever you say :-).
1. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1996/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
3. As 1 above, but also here’s the programing: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
That’s a start anyway.
Incidentally, if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others (see link in my last post)?
Please pardon some awkward language in my last post, I’m a bit rushed today.
“” Roger Sowell (23:45:42) :
<<>
Batteries are getting much better, and very quickly. Some research at University of Texas at Austin produced a nano-sheet of carbon that will improve capacitors, too. “”
So Roger, what is it that YOU know about the periodic table of the elements; that has escaped the purview of evry chemist and physicist on earth.
Chemists do know how to make Lithium based batteries that have higher energy densities (any way you want to measure that) than the types of batteries in modern electronics.
They also know how to make other kinds of bombs, that are even more impressive.
You can make a battery by putting a couple of wires of different metals into an orange; or a lemon too. I’ve even run a transistor radio off such a battery. Then I ate the orange, after I had done the experiment.
But as the batteries get more energetic; they also get more obnoxious; both safetly wise and environmentally.
There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space. Well we do know one way; you can store a whole lot of energy: in hydrogen or deuterium nuclei; which you can get out by converting that to Helium in a battery. Fortunately we haven’t learned a safe way to do that yet; so the battery is quite safe, but you can’t get access to all that lovely energy.
Better batteries and electric cars are a Tom Swift pipe dream.
Perhaps if I said there are laws against those things, you will understand.
George
“…if you consider Hansen ‘fraudulent’, would you agree with me that he’d have to be an extremely incompetent fraud, given that he’s not been able to get the GISS temperature record to diverge significantly from the majority of others…”
As we see, GISS diverges significantly from the others: click
“”” Mike D. (21:12:53) :
“… the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. … If the planet gets too warm, the water vapor feedback can cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The ocean boils into the atmosphere and life is extinguished.” “””
Hey Mike,
Why don’t I just give you free and clear; your very own “Venus Syndrome.”
Using my very own Playstation II ; much like Peter Humbug uses, I’m going to heat up the top layers of the ocean to just below 100 deg C; or just over if you like; but I’m only going to heat enough to cover the whole earth from pole to pole with saturated water vapor say from ground level to 10 km depth about 30,000 feet.
I’ll leave the rest of the ocean at its present temperature, and leave all the other GHGs in the atmosphere as they are.
Now I turn the reality (real physics) switch back on.
Now its all your to deal with; a real Venus situation.
So now, you can figure out what happens next.
If you like the result; then you can try the reverse experiment, where you cool the surface down to zero C, and then pick every last water molecule out of the atmosphere with tweezers, before you turn reality back on.
So now what happens.
After you have thought these disaster scenarios through; you can write a short opinion on “Tipping Points”.
During these Experiment, we can transport all life on earth to Mars for a short vacation.
George
Philip McDaniel —
To assume that anthropogenic changes ARE influencing climate changes and then set about finding the facts that support this is not science.
That humans are changing their environment is fact.
That humans are changing the local climate via changing the local environment is also a fact. UHI (e.g.) wouldn’t exist otherwise.
To posit that humans are changing the world climate and then looking to see if this is correct is science.
Obviously there’s little point in further discussion here.
JohnW —
Perhaps you could post links to:
Dr. Hansen’s data is online including the source code for the Fortran routines that massage it. There have been links posted on this site was well as on ClimateAudit run by Mr. McIntyre. Much of the discontent with Dr. Hansen is that he’s overtly political; I’m not convinced that either his data or methods are inherently incorrect. I certainly disagree with his politics: hamstringing the US serves no real purpose. Most of us who visit this site probably agree with me re his politics; some of us seem to want to try to prove that his data is wrong. It’s perfectly reasonable to accept that his data etc is correct (or at least correct enough) and that his conclusions aren’t. Conclusions aren’t data.
Roger Sowell —
What I don’t see addressed in your stuff is the End To End energy budget data. I’m well aware that hybrid tech saves the vehicle operator money for fuel not consumed. My point was that it appears that hybrid tech is energy intensive in construction, i.e. where do you get the materials, and how much energy is used for getting and processing these over and above a diesel; and it appears that proper recycling/disposal also eats energy over and above a more conventional engine (diesel) technology.
My own back of the envelope calcs suggest that hybrids are more energy intensive throughout the entire lifecycle, therefore to “beat” a 50 mpg diesel driven an avg number of lifetime miles (say 200k for argument) a hybrid would have to get something like 90 mpg because of the hidden up front and disposal costs.
Thus you have the basis of my question. Do you have data suggesting otherwise, or is this conjecture, or are your calcs based on the cost only at the driver experience end of things?
George E. Smith — “There simply is no such thing as a green battery; and there also is no such thing as a safe way to store large amounts of energy in a small space.”
Gasoline is nothing more than energy storage. It is reasonably safe when treated properly. I think modern automotive infrastructure (e.g. gas stations, fuel trucks, etc.) is testament to that. I’m thinking gasoline at this point seems far safer than any sort of exotic battery as a storage medium.
IMHO of course. 🙂
George E. Smith —
I invite you to keep a close eye on things. You might be surprised…
Do you doubt that the Texas researchers produced what they claim they did?
Btw…I followed along behind a brand-new Tesla car a week or so ago in Los Angeles. 100-percent electric…but I didn’t get the driver’s name…perhaps it was Tom Swift?
Then again, I did not get to personally drive a Saturn Vue with AFS Trinity’s hybrid system on it…but I am sure the guy who did the demonstration run in January 2008 was named Tom Swift…
The Aptera is another car that Tom Swift might have designed and built…
As to what ‘cannot be done,’ you might consider that Einstein himself was skeptical about quantum mechanics…said that God does not play dice. But others went right ahead anyway, and now we have such things as computers and cell phones.
I know about geeks and engineers, and what they can do. I are one.
Roger E. Sowell