Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP Linear Trends: Before and After
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and here’s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
It is based on the John Daly archived data:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006
and the current Contiguous U.S. surface temperature anomaly data from GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
In their presentations, most people have been concerned with which decade had the highest U.S. surface temperature anomaly: the 1940s or the 1990s. But I couldn’t recall having ever seen a trend comparison, so I snipped off the last 9 years from current data and let EXCEL plot the trends:
http://i44.tinypic.com/295sp37.gif
Before the post-1999 GISS adjustments to the Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data, the linear trend for the period of 1880 to 1999 was 0.035 deg C/decade. After the adjustments, the linear trend rose to 0.044 deg C/decade.
Thanks to Anthony Watts who provided the link to the older GISTEMP data archived at John Daly’s website in his post here:
NOTE: Bob, The credit really should go to Michael Hammer, who wrote that post, but I’m happy to have a role as facilitator. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paraphrasing for the previous thread by Michael Hammer on the NOAA temp records, when your primary evidence for a hypothesis comes not from the data, but from the adjustments you made to the data, maybe you should check the adjustments first. Aw, hell no… why spend a few thousand dollars on an open and transparent analysis (popular terminology in some circles) when you can tax consumers and spend billions?
Bill Marsh (06:50:57) :
“Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony”
“Is that a corollary of Occam’s Razor?”
As I remember it is called “Hanlon’s Razor.”
I keep being overcome by this child-like naivety. Sorry.
Since climate is as complex as it is and since we know so little about how it works and since it could be important for our future to have some small idea of what is genuinely likely to be round the next corner, why do those who research it need to produce dubious figures , easily refuted “facts”, and in some cases outright mendacity to keep the scam going?
I can see why politicians might need to or what could be in it for the eco-fascists but the scientists ought to be able to make a pretty good case for research funding regardless of which way things are trending. As it is when the s**t finally does hit the fan the whole concept of climatology will be so discredited that we could actually be in big trouble when we need the real research findings.
PS Good to see the name of Richard North appear on here. Unless it’s a different one he is one of the UK good guys and well worth listening to.
GISS can try to produce a warming history all it wants, but people are not buying into it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
He will never agree to a debate. Step 1. Get Fox to agree to broadcast a debate. We will select a few people from the skeptic side, then invite Hansen or Gore for the other side.
When they decline, somebody else will step up and want to do it.
I find the comparisons to integrity in the financial system interesting. While those responsible were held accountable to their actions, the end result was the same – people lost their money. Whatever the reasons for these adjustments, the end result will be taxes on CO2, shutting down coal plants, higher oil and gas prices, recycling by force, and many more jobs lost. Our government is not listening to these questions about their decisions.
As Ms. Boxer said, they ” worked so hard to get that title” and are not going to give it up easily.
I do not know why everyone is so caught up in climate this and the other. Maybe I am missing something but our right now is in a mess, at least here in the US. Should the weather be the source of so much talk??
I am more interested in the economy, jobs, money for now. The rain and global warming will come later after the more important issues have been settled!
Blessings!
LM
I agree we should avoid characterizing this type of behavior as fraud. Braddles (22:03:14) : and Zalotocky (05:54:55) are much closer I think. Fraud is criminal and will force the offenders to defend their lives if seriously accused. We all need to be civil and help advance the science and give the people who publish a graceful way to correct themselves.
Even Bernie Madoff probably started out by just cheating a little like a gambler who just lost, thinking he could make it up later when his system started working again. It will do no one any good if we criminalize error in science.
And like Braddle said, it is easiest to fool ourselves. If solar minimum really is masking AGW, we will not look very smart to quibble about the data adjustments. I think the best approach is to point out the impossibility of using such disparate, uneven records to discern global temperature trends at all. The satellite records from the last 30 years are much more meaningful than any stitched together record.
John Galt: You asked, “So where is the peer-reviewed study used to explain and justify all these adjustments?”
For the USHCN papers, scroll down to the bottom of this page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
For the GISS papers relating to GISTEMP, refer to this one:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html
And refer to Steve McIntyre’s discussions:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891
Regards
Funny how “cooking data” is not tolerated on NASA flight programs, yet Hansen puts data through a blender, and is rewarded with ever increasing research dollars…at the expense of the Constellation program.
To me, the big message surrounding this discussion of GISS surface temperature “products” is this. Why is GISS in this business to begin with? Isn’t this kind of analysis within the purview of NOAA? Why do we have two government-generated temperature indexes that don’t even agree with each other? And if they did happen to agree, why do we have two (or more) groups doing this?
I really see GISS as a big money sink. Any products that some agency needs could probably be done by NOAA. With the money you’d save, you could purchase some new satellites or ground equipment for research. As it is, we have GISS set up in a very expensive location (New York City) producing bad code (Model E and GISTEMP) and redundant products all at taxpayer’s expense (to the tune of millions of dollars). Has anyone reviewed their budget? What are they spending their money on? Is GISS just another place for researchers to have fun publishing papers and generating products (and press releases) that nobody needs?
Everyone should remember the GISS example when your congressman or senator asks you to give “your fair share” of taxes to fund the government…
This is a bit OT, but has anyone else wondered about the $175/household cost the CBO is kicking out for the climate bill? How did we get from $3K-$20K/household to $175? Web references for the $175 number seem to start around 22Jun09, yet the bill was significantly altered that entire week, including the 300 pages on the last day. Now MSM is all about the CBO’s $175/household cost. Who wouldn’t save the world for $175?
So what changed, what was subtracted, or what was ignored?
lawyermommy (08:58:40) Boy, am I glad you are not my lawyer, …..
Whichever graph you look at does it really matter?
Assumming the temperature record is dead accurate and that both graphs are accurate?
The first shows a rise of 0.2C between 1880 and 2000. 120 years
The second shows a rise of 0.5C between the same period.
Why would anyone be concerned? Change the exagerated vertical scale and the change in temperature is not even worthy of discussion, but of course we will.
Please accept this as constructive critiscism, the moving graphs especially when on stops at a later date show an exageratted distortion and I am sure this site would not want to be accussed of distorting data?
There is a similar effect with the Central England Temperature graph which goes back to 1650, when it was “taken over” the temperature appeared to suddenly rise, but again change the vertical scale and what you get are benign climatic conditions.
Oops sorry for the typos and of course my comments are not peer reviewed.
Waterboarding at GISS-mo
Where are the GISS whistleblowers?
I’ve always believed that fraud and conspiracy theories can be attributed to simple stupidity.
The story today in the NYT by Paul Krugman is a riot.
I would volunteer myself to be tried and given the death penalty as a “denier” (as they like to call it). There are no facts from Krugman or his readers… just lots of name calling and the usual “Wow you must be stupid!”.
/waiting for my day in court
(sorry about the ot, but i needed to vent about it)
In the South of the UK today it has been around 28º C and in 1976 it was around 36º C and yet on BBC Radio 5 this morning they had a doctor saying that warm weather was killing off old people rapidly. Stay indoors, keep cool etc. She hinted that global warming was going to make things worse and the Met Office having produced forecasts [from June 24th till this morning] for the 29th June showing no sign of a problem has just painted part of their map with warning colours from the Thames estuary to North Wales. Based on Thunderstorm actuals. So how much computer power is required to do that!
Waiting for the sea level to rise as I type………..
lawyermommy (08:58:40) : You are not alone. Virtually all polls put those things you mentioned at the top of political priorities, and AGW at the bottom.
The largest GISS headquarter buildings I’ve seen are in northern Washington DC – not in New York City. Then again, maybe that area “is” more expensive than in NYC. 8<)
Frank K. (09:34:09) : “Why do we have two government-generated temperature indexes that don’t even agree with each other? And if they did happen to agree, why do we have two (or more) groups doing this?”
I agree if you talk just about US, but globally I would like to have several independent agencies that measure and analyze climate data. One could be from the USA, but then European, Russian, Chinese, Indian maybe some more.
Deviation of the measurement results gives us also an indication of accuracy but only if they are really independent.
Flanagan (01:57:47) :
Your post is off topic but deserves at least a comment.
How about performing some additional calculations such as the energy lost from the global system during the Little Ice Age when glaciers advanced. This might put your energy values in context. Yes, sea levels are rising but sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. No smoking gun there.
History shows cycles in climate are natural. Climate history shows that the earth’s climate since the 1970’s is not extraordinary or unprecedented. As much as the AGW proponents would like to switch the roles, the burden of proof is in the AGW camp.
CBS got EPA Scoop concerning EPA censorship:
http://tiny.cc/PEjQb
Rod Smith (08:35:42) : (Bill Marsh (06:50:57) : “Never ascribe conspiracy or fraud, when simple incompetence will do nicely – Anthony” “Is that a corollary of Occam’s Razor?”)
As I remember it is called “Hanlon’s Razor.”
Hanlon’s Razor goes like this:
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
Or the variation which adds:
“. . ., but don’t rule out malice.”
It was Napoleon Bonaparte who used “incompetence” in place of “stupidity.”