From Dr. Roger Pielke Senior’s blog:
UPDATE PM JANUARY 16 2010 – Jim Hansen has released a statement on his current conclusions regarding the global average surface temperature trends [and thanks to Leonard Ornstein and Brian Toon for alerting us to this information]. The statement is If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold? by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo
My comments below remain unchanged. Readers will note that Jim Hansen does not cite or comment on any of the substantive unresolved uncertainties and systematic warm bias that we report on in our papers. They only report on their research papers. This is a clear example of ignoring peer reviewed studies which conflict with one’s conclusions.
***ORIGINAL POST***
Thanks to Anthony Watts for alerting us to a news release by NASA GISS (see) which reads
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)” [note: I could not find the specific url from NASA, so I welcome being sent this original source].
This statement perpetuates the erroneous claim that the data sources are independent [I welcome information from GISS to justify their statement, and will post if they do]. This issue exists even without considering any other concerns regarding their analyses.
I have posted a number of times on my weblog with respect to the lack of independence of the surface temperature data; e.g. see
Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses
There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic biases in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which we reported in the peer reviewed literature, i.e.
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229
with only one Comment in the literature on just two of our issues by the CRU group
Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: Comment on Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450
which we refuted in
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938
with the referees agreeing with our Reply (see reviews contained within this post).
The NASA GISS (and NCDC and CRU groups) have also not responded to the systematic warm bias that we reported in
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2010), Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655.
The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release. This is not how the scientific process should be conducted.
We urge, based on the exposure of such type of behavior in the CRU e-mails; i.e. see
The Crutape Letters by Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010 ISBN/EAN13: 1450512437 / 9781450512435
that the suppression of alternative viewpoints ends.
The bottom line is this: We don’t believe you.
Cheers
Looks like Jim Hansen got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar…
Again…
OT
Another post dealing with inaccuracy:
Roy Spencer
Is Spencer Hiding the Increase? We Report, You Decide
I’m getting emails from people who have read blog postings accusing me of “hiding the increase”….I switched from 13 months to a running 25 month average….25-month smoother minimizes the warm 1998 temperature spike, which is the main reason why I switched to the longer averaging time. If anything, this ‘hides the decline’ since 1998….accusations I have hidden the increase. Go figure.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/is-spencer-hiding-the-increase-we-report-you-decide/
NASA GISS doesn’t Mannipulate data they say, but they refuse to cooperate with releasing the un Mannipulated data. Hansen claims to have his nose above FOIA requests.
Hansen’s stubbornness will backfire.
Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. […] The agency is confident of the quality of this data
I seem to remember that Gavin Schmidt excused their various data problems by saying that they only have a 0.25 employee to do the quality checking. Not even a single full-time equivalent. So hard to be ‘confident’ in my book.
We’ll see who’s gullible when racketeering charges start.
What exactly are the “quality control checks” that NASA claims “are regularly performed on that data”?
Jim Hansen and the rest of the hockey team do not need to address unresolved conflicts with other papers as long as they hold the aura of “the authority”. Acting as the singular authority all other views can be ignored as unsupported, unproven, or just tainted by big oil.
As soon as the hockey team is shown to be just one more viewpoint tainted by their own funding sources and ethical problems the appeal to authority argument will no longer work.
Hmmm that last sentence should begin with “Now that” instead of “As soon as”.
With $30 Billion research dollars available for promoting the theory of AGW, I am not hopeful that the suppression of alternative theories will end…
Mr. Hansens paper show cute little graphs run on the same heavliy modified and cherry-picked GISS datasets, as well as the equally derived HadCRUT.
Rural datasets, on the other hand, do not show the ghastly warming. Anomaly maps might be good for analysis, but they are not the reality. They are used by Hansen and others to hide the fact that the modified temperature set is not the observed temperature set.
It is true that there has been some warming, but NOT the high temps. What they don’t want you to know is that the warming was due to increased nighttime temps. I say was, because that is coming to a screeching halt.
Also, Mr. Hansen says
“For example, if it is an unusually cold winter in New York, it is probably unusually cold in Philadelphia too. This fact suggests that it may be better to assign a temperature anomaly based on the nearest stations for a gridbox that contains no observing stations, rather than excluding that gridbox from the global analysis. ”
Really? I’m supposed to believe that in order to get a better picture, I should run Hubble Space Telescope equipped with a mask to let in a cone of light the size of a coffee can lid.
No wonder the picture they paint is so darned hazy. At the rate of data they are considering, it will take 500 years to get the next 100 years worth of data points.
The Hansen et al paper is interesting particularly the tone of the comment towards then end of paper where they say “This information needs to be combined with the conclusion that global warming of 1‐2°C
has enormous implications for humanity.” Isn’t the 1‐2°C on the low side for current estimates for the impact of CO2?
“We urge,…that the suppression of alternative viewpoints ends.”
It will only end when someone forces them to stop.
Speaking of blunders, it appears that the UN has fessed up to the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 due to a series of scientific blunders in their method.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Himalayan-melting-by-2035-Scientists-just-assumed-so/articleshow/5459848.cms
On a related note, I’ve found where the UAH and RSS raw data is stored. It’s at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the “Data Pool” section of this page:
http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/order_data.html
I’ve not yet come across any UAH or RSS source code that processes this raw data. However, there is some general purpose source code for working with this data here:
http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/tools.html
The raw data has the following noteworthy properties:
*) It’s huge. I’d estimate a single day of temperatures will be about 2.5 gigabytes of data.
*) It mixes binary and text data in a single file. The text data is in hierarchical forma, but it’s not XM, JSON, or any other standard format. It uses custom tags to define the hierarchy.
*) It includes all levels of the atmosphere. Usually, you’ll just want the troposphere, so you’ll have to extract that information out manually.
For more information on this data and how it’s collected, see the WUWT post by Dr. Spencer, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/12/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/#more-15191
ShrNfr (11:36:00) :
India was probably theatening to suit them if they didn’t knock it off.
It’s not like they didn’t drop the hint to stop sticking noses into the status of “Their” glaciers.
P.S.
In regards to the raw UAH/RSS data, I forgot to mention you’ll want the AE_L2A.2 brightness temperatures data.
http://n4eil01u.ecs.nasa.gov:22000/WebAccess/drill?attrib=esdt&esdt=AE_L2A.2&group=AMSA
NASA: We have “top men” insuring the quality of our data.
World: Who?
NASA: “Top…” “Men…”
magicjava (11:38:38) :
Data sold separately. Another flagrant abuse of public money funded research.
We pay $billions in taxes for them to do the gathering, they walk all over it, and we’re supposed to pay them exorbitant sums to have it emailed to us.
Would you pay big bucks to see a Hubble shot that was doctored in Photoshop to look like somebody tossed paint on the wall?
Of course you wouldn’t.
I’d be willing to bet that the $$$ they are charging for information already paid for with our tax money is getting diverted into other agendas or pockets.
Someday someone will ask these people how they find out the temperature in Bolivia. And that will be a funny day.
Jerzy (11:12:18) :
What exactly are the “quality control checks” that NASA claims “are regularly performed on that data”?
When they get the temperature data to conform to their models, then they are assured of the quality of their data. And the incoming raw data has been so lousy for so long, requiring so much work to adjust it until it is of acceptable quality, it’s no wonder Hansen doesn’t want to release it!
[quote rbateman (11:53:08) :
magicjava (11:38:38) :
Data sold separately.
{/quote]
I was able to get it for free.
“Isn’t the 1‐2°C on the low side for current estimates for the impact of CO2?”
There is Hansen’s projection and the IPCC projection.
Hansen’s orginal 1988 scenario’s ‘A’ have been discredited by observation.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansenlineartrend.jpg
In 2000, hansen changed his tune and started talking about soot from coal being the main problem.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20000829/
“However, new research suggests fossil fuel burning may not be as important in the mechanics of climate change as previously thought. ”
There is also a semantic game that gets played based on how much global warming since ‘when’. 2 degrees ‘C’ compared to 1850 or 2 degrees ‘C’ compared to now.
I eagerly await Anthony’s paper on the trends that can be discerned from his collaborative effort at SufaceStations.org. I realize that I am projecting my own biases somewhat, but I am sick of the “Team” getting uncritical reviews.
I am very annoyed by NCDC’s efforts to muddy the waters with their preemptive paper using a subset of the SurfaceStations data (and without properly citing Anthony too) . It stinks of interference in the peer review process and looks remarkably similar to what Mann and Jones were doing as demostrated in the Climategate emails.
Another piece of the puzzle is falling into place. The IPCC is now backpeddling on its claims about the Himalayan glaciers melting away by 2035.
The bottom line is this. Every day we now see more evidence of deliberate or otherwise alteration to climate data, or lies being told to such an extent that organizations such as the Met Office, IPCC, UN, etc. are no longer to be trusted, and in some cases are liable for fraud. The representatives of these will next be held accountable and will suffer the consequences.