I’ve been following this issue a few days and looking at a number of stations and had planned to make a detailed post about my findings, but WUWT commenter Steven Douglas posted in comments about this curious change in GISS data recently, and it got picked up by Kate at SDA, which necessitated me commenting on it now. This goes back to the beginning days of surfacestations.org in June 2007 and the second station I surveyed.
Remember Orland? That nicely sited station with a long record?
Note the graph I put in place in June 2007 on that image.
Now look at the graph in a blink comparator showing Orland GISS data plotted in June 2007 and today:
NOTE: on some browsers, the blink may not start automatically – if so, click on the image above to see it
The blink comparator was originally by Steven Douglas. However he made a mistake in the “after” image which I have now corrected.What you see above is a graphical fit via bitmap alignment and scaling of the images to fit. This is why the dots and lines appear slightly smaller in the “after” image. I don’t have the GISS Orland data handy at the moment from 2007, but I did have the GISS station plots from Orland from that time and from the present, downloaded from the GISS website today. If I locate the prior Orland data, I’ll redo the blink comparator.
I believe this blink comparator representation accurately reflects the change in the Orland data, even is the dots and lines aren’t exactly the same thickness.
Douglas writes in his notice to me:
It appears that RAW station plots are no longer available, although NASA GISS (Hansen et al) do not say it in this way. Here is the notice on their site:
Note to prior users: We no longer include data adjusted by GHCN and have renamed the middle option (old name: prior to homogeneity adjustment).
I don’t know about the “renamed” option, but the RAW data appears to be NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
Here’s a detailed blink comparison of Orland. All their options now give you an “adjusted” plot of some kind. The “AFTER” in this graph show the “adjustments” to Orland.
Here is what the GISS data selector looks like now, yellow highlight mine, click to enlarge:
Above clip from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Here is the “raw” GISS data plot of Orland I saved back in 2007:
And here is another blink comparator of Orland raw -vs- homogenized data posted by surfacestations.org volunteer Mike McMillan on 12/29/2008:
And here is the “raw” GISS data for Orland today, please note the vertical scale is now different since the pre-1900 data has been removed, the GISS plotting software autoscales to the most appropriate range:
Source:
And it is not just Orland, I’m seeing this issue at other stations too.
For example Fairmont, CA another well sited station well isolated, and with a long record:
Here is Fairmont “raw” from 11/17/2007:
And here is Fairmont from GISS today:
Source:
This raises a number of questions. for example: Why is data truncated pre-1900? Why did the slope change? The change appears to have been fairly recent, within the last month. I tried to pinpoint it using the “wayback machine” but apparently because this page:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
is forms based, the change in this phrase:
Note to prior users: We no longer include data adjusted by GHCN and have renamed the middle option (old name: prior to homogeneity adjustment).
Appears to span the entire “wayback machine” archive, even prior to 2007. If anyone has a screen cap of this page prior to the change or can help pinpoint the date of the change, please let me know.
It is important to note that the issue may not be with GISS, but upstream at GHCN data managed by NCDC/NOAA. Further investigation is needed to found out where the main change has occurred. It appears this is a system wide change.
The timing could not be worse for public confidence in climate data.
I’ll have more on this as we learn more about this data change.
UPDATE1 from comments:
GISS also just started using USHCN_V2 last month. See under “What’s New”:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
“Nov. 14, 2009: USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.
Sep. 11, 2009: NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on Sept. 9 of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning Sept. 11 the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set. ”
Sponsored IT training links:
Worried about N10-004 exam? Our 640-802 dumps and 70-680 tutorials can provide you real success on time.
Growing pains.
You guys have come so far. Keep it together and pace yourselves for the long run. That’s the way to successful conclusion at the end.
You are the few doing the good work. Do what you need to not burn out.
Surreptitious changes in the “raw” data at GISS are only half the story. Some stations have disappeared entirely off the map. If anyone has saved the Gonzales TX record from an older download, please post it. It’s no longer available elsewhere (KNMI) either.
No conspiracy theories, huh. Darn. I can save my moon landing sound stage revelations for later.
On the other hand, from my link in post (14:58:55) : above, besides the rampant ramping up of temperature slopes in Illinois, it is interesting to note that 1934, the previously hottest year in America, has been reduced at most stations regardless of the slope change. Also, 1998, the formerly second hottest year, has also been reduced many places, but not so much as to keep it from replacing 1934, but enough that it won’t be quite so hard to beat in the current century.
HTH
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ushcn_monthly/
“These files comprise CDIAC’s version of USHCN monthly data
through 2006.
An updated version of the database (through 2008) is available here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html.
However, as of August, 2009 the updated version only has “final”
or “fully-adjusted” data (what most users will want).
In the near future, “raw” and “tobs” versions of the files will be available here.
Please visit NCDC’s USHCN Vs. 2 site:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
for a full explanation of and access to these additional file types.
August, 2009″
Anthony
In regards to the Orland CA data issue, 6 days ago I posted the l following query. Obviously it happened before that date.
—————————————————————
5 Dec 2009
D L Kuzara (14:22:23) :
Can someone explain why the two temperature charts of Orland CA and Marysville CA on the surfacestations.org home page (bottom) do not match, in fact seem to be radically different than the current charts and data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov?
Has someone changed the underlying data at Nasa?
—————————————————————-
Investigations into the Climategate scandal are still stalled even after experts have claimed the the Data ‘ leaked ‘ from the CRU is authenic .
I would wish that the investigation would begin soon because alot of raw data that could be evidence in an investigation is suddenly disappearing or destroyed .
This Raw Data is the evidence that the CRU was intentionally manipulating the figures . If no raw data is available for a investigation, then it will make it that much more difficult to prove the CRU liable .
‘ They ‘ know what there doing. . .
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/readme.txt
“README FILE FOR THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK (U.S. HCN) MONTHLY DATA Version 2”
“***”raw (unadjusted) temperature series”***”
Science Daily
Weir in Space and Dimmed Sun Creates 200-Million-Mile-Long Lab Bench for Turbulence Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091211131524.htm
I posted this in tips on the 5th
Afterwards I noticed that 2006 which had previously been 3rd had been promoted to joint warmest in the U.S. of A.
DvaeE
Hosco, I’d call them “growling pains.”
Just curious, I get that they switched to a new version, but why does the new version cut off all that data? Or is that what everyone is trying to figure out? A little confused as to how the version difference settles the question. Help?
Anthony
Do you really think that it’s possible to get back to the true raw data?
From what I’ve read of this thread, I understand that there are no paper records for either GISS or GHCN or both. The best that could be hoped for is to get back the data to a date when someone with foresight downloaded the prior data. But this assumes that the data at that prior date was valid.
I interpret the comments of those who are more familiar with the data that adjustments and corrections and deletions seem to have happened in a completely ad hoc way. I see no reason to assume that even that prior date data hasn’t been willfully corrupted.
Surely the only recourse is to ditch all the surface temperatures as unreliable unless corroborating paper evidence can be found to support it? This seems to be a huge forensic task – perhaps worthy of farming out to the internet for data collation, but huge nonetheless. I’m a relative newbie to all of this – at least in the blogosphere, but having lots of QA experience, I fail to see how the veracity of the surface temperature data can be assured.
Watts should do a story on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI
“Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.”
Saving all the data possible in multiple sites seems paramount. Am I correct to understand that these modifications are proceeding in real time or has it been completed already?
This is so maddening, how can they get away with this? This smacks of outright fraud! I am almost certain we are being duped by these watermelons…
LA Times
The silliness of Climategate
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column
re, jack Kendrick (15:40:48) :
” They can’t just keep adjusting temperatures ever upwards.”
Why not adjust the older data downwards?
Tim Heyes,
So you’re basically saying, “ISO 9000 – FAIL.”
I’m counting the days till a Hollywood actor goes on TV to explain that past temperatures decline due to the law of entropy and the expanding universe, that the planet’s past is as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as its present, so of course the old weather station data has to be changed to reflect this inevitable decline. ^_^
This wholesale substitution of opinion for real data is simply scary.
George Turner (15:29:50) :
“It would be nice if someone go on television with a copy of modern data on a particular site and an old copy of a newspaper from the same place, showing the high and low for the previous day,”
There is an online site where you can do keyword searches through hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of newspapers, mostly from the US & Canada. Once you’ve set up your search template on the search page, you can search through a long time series of a paper and harvest the hits, then click on them one at a time to go straight to the temperature data for the day.
(Note–the site is a bit awkward and cranky and there are tricks to navigating it and using the search feature that take time to learn. Also, I haven’t done a temperature search myself–I’m drawing on my experience with searching for other material.)
The cost is $12/month on a month-by-month basis, or $6/month if an annual subscription is bought. (I.e., $72/year.) I think there’s a free one-week (or so) trial subscription. Here’s the link:
http://www.newspaperarchive.com
The Grand Canyon is pretty wild since they’ve turned an ‘N’ into a ‘/’. I thought I was nuts when I plotted the raw data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ but was happy to find the AppinSys site for plotting raw/adjusted to confirm my plots: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900111AR42572376008x .
I did a difference curve:
http://i45.tinypic.com/bguywn.jpg
There is yet other version, the GISS processed one. GISS creates a less steep version, so in this case GISS is reducing the urban heat island effect of the Grand Canyon?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425723760080&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
Please address technical questions about these GISTEMP webpages to Dr. Reto Ruedy. So I sent this email to him. We will see if I get a response.
Dr Ruedy
I noticed that sometime prior to 5 Dec 2009, when I last looked, the underlying temperature data for the Marysville CA and Orland CA surface stations were modified from the original (and I assume raw) data that was previously on the GISS website.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725910040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.425725910040.1.1/station.txt
The Orland CA station is has a long history and is properly sited, without the usual urban encroachment, so I am at a loss as to why the data was recently altered as well as truncated.
Could you tell me the date when the data for this station was changed on the GISS website?
Could you please explain why the data for this station has been altered and the reasons for the alteration?
How can I obtain the raw (non-homogenized) data for this station? Is there a link to this data?
Thank you
Dennis Kuzara
CFACT arrives in Copenhagen
CFACT’s delegation arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark to educate delegates and media from around the world that the climate change treaty is All Pain No Gain.
http://www.cfact.org/a/1655/CFACT-arrives-in-Copenhagen
Check the rerun of tonight’s O’Reilly Factor. Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Windbag, slices and dices Tyson Slocum with a very sharp blade. Almost felt sorry for him.
Ed Reid:
Apparently the “global temperature record” is now also considered to be a “living document”.
Outstanding. Why hide the decline when you can just amend it into oblivion?