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?
Steve Hempell says:
Of course, all scientific knowledge is tentative but, unfortunately, some people will always use this fact to prevent any public policy action…i.e., they will demand “proof”, a standard that science can never provide. This is, for example, what the tobacco companies did very successfully for many years, first in regards to the dangers of smoking to the smokers and then regarding secondhand smoke.
But, science can only provide evidence…never proof. There will always be some uncertainty.
And, Hansen did not say people should be incarcerated if they disagree with him. He made a particular comment about fossil fuel company executives and his point was, as I understand it, was analogous again to the cigarette case: If it can be shown that they knew the scientific evidence was saying one thing but continued to claim otherwise and thus delayed action and caused harm then they should be held liable.
I personally think that Hansen went over the line with that comment. For one thing, I think that sort of thing would be difficult to prove anyway, although I suppose in the case of the tobacco companies they have been able to demonstrate it to a sufficient extent to win civil suits.
Simon Evans (16:14:39)
“Professor James Hansen has flown to the UK to appear at Maidstone Crown Court to back protesters charged with criminal damage at a giant power station in Kent. “(KingsNorth)
The protestors where painting “Gordon, bin it” on the power station, but where stopped during the excercise.
What was a scientist doing defending vandals? Closing the gap between science and politics? If you or I painted graffiti on a public utility, we would be charged – unless we where Greenpeace members Then it appears to be OK.
NOAA tells us we are doomed (at the costs of the tax payer)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
JeffT (17:23:50) :
Simon Evans (16:14:39)
“Professor James Hansen has flown to the UK to appear at Maidstone Crown Court to back protesters charged with criminal damage at a giant power station in Kent. “(KingsNorth)
The protestors where painting “Gordon, bin it” on the power station, but where stopped during the excercise.
What was a scientist doing defending vandals? Closing the gap between science and politics? If you or I painted graffiti on a public utility, we would be charged – unless we where Greenpeace members Then it appears to be OK.
The ‘Kingsnorth Six’ were found not guilty by a UK jury, therefore they are not guilty of any criminal actions. That’s what happened, and you won’t change it by describing them as vandals.
I was responding above to the ludicrous distortion that suggested they had destroyed a power plant!
Personally I think it would be a very good idea if all chimneys were given names, although ‘Gordon’ would not be my first choice ;-).
Hansen testified on the impact of climate change. He didn’t say anything whatsoever in the trial which suggested judgment of chimney painting. You may, by all means, dispute his view of climate change, but I am rather taken aback that you think he shouldn’t express it. Personally, I value the right to speak one’s mind, and value the opinions of those who are studied in a field, even if I don’t agree with them.
I didn’t particularly want to get diverted into this, but the distortion of truth (which I rather think was unlikely to be challenged by any of the ‘anti-warmists’ here) was too much to swallow. Might you not just say “Fair enough, you clarified the truth of the matter – thanks for that, the truth is what we’re interested in here”?
The “fire the guy” comments trouble me. Yes, Hansen is akin to the bearded geek on the street corner carrying a sign that says “The End Is Near.” And yes, he is a higly paid public servant. It might follow that tax dollars are better spent on the non-crazy.
But… too many of my friends have been fired or defunded or pushed out for daring to speak the skeptic line. The propensity to unemploy those we disagree with, over matters of science, is deplorable no matter which side of the fence you are on.
I can tolerate Hansen, and even enjoy his data manipulations and silly prophesies, if the Alarmist crowd could please extend a similar toleration to people they disagree with, who happen to be friends of mine, and who are exceedingly wonderful, smart, responsible people.
Joel
Why do you haul out that worn out talking point regarding the tobacco companies? It is not relevant to the science here and I would think most people here are tired of it being hauled out by the more “lets bring up the red herring” AGW types.
The CO2 causes catastrophic climate changes “hypothesis” is very tentative to say the least and is being very legitimately scrutinized and questioned by many people. We don’t need Phd scientists going off the deep end when these people question the science.
Perhaps you would like to view the lectures. Especially the one titled “The November Revolution of 1974” and get an insight into how careful, meticulous and rigorous science is done . Only costs $70 ($35 for the downloaded audio) A very worthwhile investment.
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1247
Dear Smokey (18:53:52) : ,
You wrote so eloquently with great reference!
I have to agree with you. I believe some here are misplacing these words that Hansen writes, or simply placing in narrow focus, when in fact this is simply Hansen’s personality. I believe this is only a peek into the psyche of the individual, not an admission of malice, but an insight into unconscious psychological intent. I find it difficult to believe that Hansen would consciously and deliberately sabotage his own credibility in such fashion, more, this is an unconscious revealing, quite inline with his other writings and speeches. His position and bias is quite clear, and could perhaps affect his work, most probably unintentionally however. He in fact “believes” what he says, and “believes” he is doing well for the greater good, no matter how misplaced that may actually be.
OT: To the people who have spoken about various energy sources and hybrid vehicles, I would like to propose an idea to ponder. This is something I am very interested in pursuing in the very near future.
1) Rather recently, a company has successful begun the manufacturing of a solar film that is extremely efficient by comparison to typical silicon, and much cheaper. They are beginning to incorporate this technology into several products, including roofing and siding materials.
2) Researchers at MIT recently discovered a polymer that very efficiently separates H and O from H2O with very low electrical power consumption.
Now, the idea. Take #1 to collect electrical power and couple that to #2 to produce hydrogen that one could store almost indefinitely. Obtain an efficient hydrogen combustion electrical generator, and Viola! One could theoretically run their entire household off of the sun in a practical and affordable manor. Then, purchase an electric car, or plug-in hybrid, and you have essentially provided for all of your energy needs indefinitely.
I am seriously considering pursuing this idea myself and will continue to watch developments in these technologies until such time that it becomes feasible, which I predict is only 2-4 years away.
Mike D. (18:06:17) :
I completely disagree with you. I too think he should go, for no other reason than level of confidence. A person in his position has to maintain a very high confidence level throughout the public and scientific communities. I don’t care what he proves or disproves, I just want to be confident that he is doing the science and not just injecting his own biases. He himself, for me (and I suspect many many others), has completely shattered that confidence level. Time to go…
These are interesting biographical notes on James Hansen.
http://audubonmagazine.org/global.html
Excerpt:
“….In 1976 he was happily working as the principal investigator on the Pioneer Venus Orbiter experiment when a Harvard postdoctoral researcher asked his help in calculating the greenhouse effect of manmade gases in the earth’s atmosphere. “It didn’t take long until I was captivated by this greenhouse problem,” Hansen says. He resigned from the Venus project to work on the earth, “because I thought it was even more exciting to study a planetary atmosphere that was changing-scientifically exciting and also of practical importance…”
It appears that James Hansen has only ever been interested in so called ‘greenhouse gases’ and their supposed effects on the earth’s climate to the exclusion of all other factors.
John Galt (10:55:12) :
Hansen’s work at GISS is tax-payer funded and everything should be available to the public. Notes, emails, raw data, adjustments to data, source code for the models, etc., etc., that doesn’t have any national security implications.
Anybody up for a Freedom of Information Act request?
I have the source code and input data. It is freely downloadable (and I’ve posted how to get it on other threads on this site, as have other people).
I am in the early stages of a source code review. I have completed a general overview pass and summary description at a top level. I have also completed an in depth review of STEP0 (out of 0,1,2,3,4_5).
So far, it has been interesting. Leaving aside the ‘style’ issues (like: why recompile the FORTRAN each time you use it?) I have found some ‘odd’ behaviours. It’s too long to put in a comment, but a sample might do:
From: gistemp.txt
Replacing USHCN-unmodified by USHCN-corrected data: […]
The latest common 10 years for each station were used to compare corrected and uncorrected data. The offset obtained in way was subtracted from the corrected USHCN reports to match any new incoming GHCN reports for that station (GHCN reports are updated monthly; in the past, USHCN data used to lag by 1-5 years).
End gistemp.txt quote
This makes it sound like a simple swap of corrected data for uncorrected, with the only adjustment being to match the tail end of the data a bit better to any very recent (months time frame) data that might be in GHCN, but not yet in USHCN. But when there are data for a given station for a given year in both USHCN and GHCN, the reality is much different. Over time, I would expect ever more of the data to be in both GHCN and USHCN, no? What happens then:
The ‘USHCN-unmodified’ data are NOT replaced by ‘USHCN-corrected’; they are replaced by:
USHCN_corrected(year,month) – (average of up to 10 of: [
USHCN_corrected(semi_randomyear,month) –
USHCN_unmodified(semi_randomyear,month) ] )
How does that make any sense? How are these created data any better than valid data from USHCN? Why are these changes applied over a large number of years?
In particular, if a recent TOB bias has been removed, that forms the basis of the ‘correction’ that is then ‘removed’ from all the USCN_corrected data even from before the TOB began. What sense does it make to remove a recent TOB from past data (from before it existed)?
This might explain the tendency for the past to change ‘randomly’ in modified GISS data… And since TOB can be a degree or two, the magnitude match the observed variations.
While many have been trying to analyze Hansen’s statements in the post, there’s no mistaking what he’s saying in this NASA Q&A: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
Especially telling, at least to me, are:
Yet GISS makes adjustment to sites based on other sites as much has hundreds of miles away…
So, if he can’t answer the question, what’s all the fuss about? He can’t quantify the current measurement techniques as being in any way meaningful, yet we’re supposed to believe there’s a catastrophe going on.
Added emphasis is mine. So, guesses in computer models are ok, because after a while the initial conditions won’t matter. Riiiight. And of course a complete guess won’t generate garbage, no, that can’t happen.
Again I ask, of you can’t give me an accurate answer to the question, why are we worried about a few tenths of a degree change (up OR down)? And “Most trusted models” which contain “guesses”. Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Also meant to add, for the following:
Such models are demonstrably erroneous after only a few days, so why should we trust them for anything beyond that time?
Steve Hempell says:
You brought up this whole issue when you claimed that Hansen had expressed that “people should be incarcerated when they disagree with him”. I was merely correcting you by pointing out what he actually said and making the analogy to the closest analogue that I believes exists in regards to his idea of prosecuting fossil fuel company executives. (I also noted that I was not a big fan of this comment of his at any rate.)
Those lectures sound great and it sounds like Professor Pollock does a really nice job. However, I think I understand how “careful, meticulous and rigorous science is done”, having worked in the field of physics for over 20 years now.
Tangentially, I might also mention that within the physics community there is actually some grumbling about the directions that particle physics has gone off in during the last 20 years or so. If you want to talk about a field in which theory has been relatively unconstrained by actual experimental data, alas string theory et al is unfortunately a rather good example! (If you want to learn more about this, the book “The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next” by Lee Smolin -which I have to admit I haven’t read- looks like the place to start.) Hopefully, the new CERN collider coming on line will help to provide more experimental constraints on some of the theorizing!
Jeff Alberts (08:18:23) and (08:20:51):
You are missing the whole point of that page which is that the reason to study anomalies rather than absolute surface air temperatures is exactly all of these problems that exist if you try to look at absolute surface air temperatures. This is well-explained on the main GISTEMP page from which the link to the discussion of the problems with absolute SATs that you quoted from originates ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ ):
Joel,
I can’t decipher what of the above was a citation of Jeff Alberts, or what is a citation from Hansen, and which is your own statement.
But if I understand the bottom line, GISStemp anomalies don’t pretend to be representative of the “average” or “mean” value of the temperature of the globe, or any subset of it, such as the surface, or the lower troposphere, which might be a constant 60 inches off the ground (which itself could be 29,000 feet above sea level).
In that case, GISStemp tells us even less about whether the planet is warming or cooling, in the sense that it is radiating the right mount of electromagnetic radiation energy to combat the constant influx from the sun.
And just what is meant by correlated out to distances of 1000 km. Does that mean that what happens here in down town San Jose, a quarter mile from the international airport, is representative of what is going on in the Sea of Cortez off Santa Rosalia, or meybe even Loreto Bay ?
What does correlated mean in the sense used in that statement ?
George:
The first paragraph (i.e. the unindented one) is my words and the second paragraph (i.e. the indented one) is Hansen’s.
The bottomline as I see it is this: If you plot absolute surface temperatures as a function of location, this 2-dimensional field will not have very “nice” characteristics. For example, if you are in a mountainous region, the surface temperature will vary wildly with location. Think of such a plot near Mt. Washington: the weather station at the top of the mountain will have a vastly different temperature than one located in a valley only a few miles away. Even if surface topography is not strongly varying, you can still get other effects, e.g. due to a nearby body of water or river.
However, the temperature anomaly, i.e., the surface temperature minus the average surface temperature (over some, say, 30 year period) will have much nicer characteristics. Hence, this is the variable that one should focus on.
Well, I would recommend reading the reference that Hansen cites if you want to get the full scoop. However, what I assume he means is that, yes, there is a positive correlation between the temperature anomaly at one place and the temperature anomaly at another place within a distance of roughly 1000km. That doesn’t mean that stations separated by distances less than that agree perfectly but it does mean that, over such distances, the correlation in the temperature anomalies between two stations tends on average to be positive and statistically significant.
See, for example, here for a general tutorial on measuring such correlations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation Tamino had a couple of posts about these correlations in temperature anomalies, the latter of which is here (with a link to the earlier one): http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/temperature-records-of-the-week-shelby-county-tennessee/ I seem to also recall a very nice correlation map presented somewhere…I thought it was at Tamino’s blog but I can’t seem to find it.
Joel you said
“And, Hansen did not say people should be incarcerated if they disagree with him. He made a particular comment about fossil fuel company executives and his point was, as I understand it, was analogous again to the cigarette case: If it can be shown that they knew the scientific evidence was saying one thing but continued to claim otherwise and thus delayed action and caused harm then they should be held liable.”
This is a quote from Hansen’s PDF document :
Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near James Hansen
“In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
I understand this as – It is his opinion, that if these CEOs disagree with the science he presumes to be correct, then they should be incarcerated.
There are many scientists with credentials more pertaining to the study of Climate than he is (He is a astrophysicist) who disagree with the science of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change. Who is he to make such a asinine statement!!
I guess we should agree to disagree. Believe it or not, I am agnostic on this and I am tying to be patient enough to see where the data takes us. However, that may not be until after I’m pushing up daisies.
Regarding particle physics. Ya, string theory seems a little flaky to me too. However, the Standard Model (as Pollack says should be Standard Theory) seems pretty solid to me being that the mathematics seems capable of making predictions and gives accurate results.
No, I understood the point of the page. My point is that the underlying methodology for obtaining the anomalies (via absolute temp measurements) can’t even be quantified by Hansen. So the anomaly starting point is flawed in the first place.
This is what gets me about people complaining that Steve McIntyre isn’t a climatologist, or that Anthony is “Only a TV meteorologist”, and therefore their opinions don’t matter.
Thanks Joel,
And thanks for the clarification on the reason for anomalies. I can’t say I agree with the concept though.
If the mean global surface temperature (if you could measure it) were plotted on a graph with a temperature scale that goes from -90C to +60 C as does the local instantaneous surface temperature on even one day in the real world; perhaps we wouldn’t have all this ruckus of people trying to make us believe that something untoward is actually happening.
But I’m also concerned that since radiative cooling of the planet’s surface follows along a generally 4th power of temperature relationship, and that the relative importance of any single GHG particularly CO2, relates more to the peak of the spectral emittance curve rather than the integral of it; which goes as the 5th power of the temperature, and invokes the Wien displacement of that peak from the GHG absorption line as well; then I can’t look on it as a quantitative science to fall back on changes in small differences; which is a differential process, well known for increasing noise in signal.
Thanks for the references.
George
Steve Hempell says:
I think if you read the full q
(Anthony, my previous comment was sent prematurely by an errant keystroke.)
Steve Hempell says:
I interpret it differently in the context of the full quotation, which is this:
The keys to me are the comparison to the tobacco companies and the statement that the “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual”. The presumption Hansen is making, presumably, is that this knowledge on their part and willful deceit can be proven in court as it could for the tobacco companies. So, what I think he is trying to say is that they don’t really disagree with him on the science but, just as with the tobacco companies, they know what the science really says but are actively distorting it anyway.
At any rate, we don’t disagree that much because I have said that I don’t like this statement by Hansen either. But, I do think it is important to interpret it in the full context of what he actually wrote so that one doesn’t claim he said things that I don’t think he really said.
G Alston said Not as much as diesels. BMW has a 55 mpg model. I had a 1981 pkup truck that got 50 MPG.
Want to get rid of a lot of “excess human heat sources”? Get rid of the pollution standards and all the excess government red tape that produces nothing useful. Only 11% of employed Americans produce the rest shuffle paper or sell Chinese goods. Sounds like a good place to start making humans more efficient doesn’t it.
Joel
Again – that is his opinion. I think he would have a tough time proving his statements in a court of law. So the context doesn’t change my opinion. Others can decide for themselves as the link is there to the letter.
Anyway, the heat is on – see the latest post. No statement here as I will have to see the context. :]