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.
So E.M.Smith (05:33:14): Do you actually believe that we’re not in a warming period?
R John (23:51:42) :
Not zero, but diminishing and smaller than other effects. With a negative PDO and quiet Sun, we stand a chance of sorting things out better. Okay, bizarre Sun. That’s an extra variable to learn about and deal with.
The logarithmic effect deals mainly with the sides of the absorbance windows where some additional blocking occurs. While there are physical reasons for it, the effect is more a curve fitting approximation and didn’t apply well at low concentrations and won’t at higher (I think much higher).
“deech56 (06:53:48) :
So E.M.Smith (05:33:14): Do you actually believe that we’re not in a warming period?”
How can anyone know with certainty as long as NASA keeps dropping cooler station locations and constant “fudgings” are added to GISS? It’s time for an apolitical accounting.
Peter Miller (15:51:24) :
As a geologist and a scientist, what I don’t understand is how changes in a trace gas (carbon dioxide), which has a concentration of less than one part in 2,500 in our atmosphere, can have more than a minuscule effect on our climate.
I accept the fact that carbon dioxide, like water vapour, is a ‘greenhouse gas’ when measured in percentage terms – but 0.038% – that’s like putting a magazine in the attic of your home and expecting the whole building to heat up.
Because CO2 is a very strong absorber of the IR radiation which cools the earth, even at a concentration of 388 ppm. To address your personal incredulity here’s an image of a flask of iodine gas at about 388ppm, imagine trying to look through a mile of that! Don’t try to repeat the experiment at home since the vapor pressure of iodine at 25ºC is 394 ppm which is a couple of hundred times higher than the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/IodoAtomico.JPG
Ric Werme (06:55:14) :
R John (23:51:42) :
Joel Shore —
C’mon how do you get around the logarithmic effect of the absorption of CO2 and any other gas!!! Adding CO2 at this point has zero effect on its absorbance!
Not zero, but diminishing and smaller than other effects. With a negative PDO and quiet Sun, we stand a chance of sorting things out better. Okay, bizarre Sun. That’s an extra variable to learn about and deal with.
The logarithmic effect deals mainly with the sides of the absorbance windows where some additional blocking occurs. While there are physical reasons for it, the effect is more a curve fitting approximation and didn’t apply well at low concentrations and won’t at higher (I think much higher).
Linear at low concentrations (~50ppm) and square root at much higher.
Mike Bryant (07:15:56) :
“deech56 (06:53:48) :
So E.M.Smith (05:33:14): Do you actually believe that we’re not in a warming period?”
How can anyone know with certainty as long as NASA keeps dropping cooler station locations and constant “fudgings” are added to GISS? It’s time for an apolitical accounting.
What are these “fudgings” you talk about, care to give us some references?
RE Mike Bryant (07:15:56) :
Well, one of those science types could look for <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/to:2010/offset:0.25/plot/rss/to:2010/trend/offset:0.25<independent confirmation" using an independent data source.
Arrrgghhh.
Fixed link
Phil. (07:49:11) :
“What are these “fudgings” you talk about, care to give us some references?”
One of many examples of GISS “adjustments”: click
When GISS adjusts prior temps down and recent temps up, it gives an alarming picture of what’s happening. But it is not honest.
Smokey (09:10:51) :
Let us not forget the use of FILTEMP, where missing data is homogenized in.
There is the question of if the data was actually not taken, or simply removed as being non-convenient. In either case, the desired data giving the model result can be ‘filled in’.
There are many tools in the fabrication box.
Phil., since you only asked about the giss fudgings do you agree that many colder weather stations have been dropped?
Just wondering… Mike
RE Smokey (09:10:51) :
How do you account for the fact that there is good correlation with the other data sets?
I know Anthony is looking at stations in the US. Is anyone looking at the UK stations? I only ask because one of the stations is little old Hurn, now better known as Bournemouth International Airport (I love the International bit). Presumably, there will be some anomolies there over time given that the airport has expanded.
If anyone is looking at the UK stations, I’d be happy to do a reccie at Hurn and report back.
deech56 (09:59:20),
Which other data sets are you referring to? The adjusted ones? Or the raw, unadjusted data? And who provides the original data?
“How do you account for the fact that there is good correlation with the other data sets?”
If adjusted data correlates well with other data sets, the other data sets must have similar adjustments… Raw data would be much appreciated by those of us who paid for it.
RE Smokey (10:07:14) :
I dunno – like this one.
Glaciers around the world are retreating – what might be the reason for that?
This is such a simple case to figure. Long-term weather variations such as can be experienced with positive or negative oscillations have stronger or weaker affects on topography depending on address. For example, desert climates have higher highs and lower lows because of topography interacting with weather parameters. So when weather is extreme, so will go the desert. Clearly, topography interacts with weather.
If the experimental plots (the temperature sensors) in Hansen’s research design were reduced over time in any biased topographical or urban heat island way (which we know is the case), the results will be biased, not because of CO2 but because of experimental design changes that are biased. Until he can provide an experimental design that is clean, he absolutely cannot say that CO2 is the cause of the warming he finds. To wit: the correlation of increased temperature with decreased sensors is as strong as the correlation between increased temperature and increased CO2, with mechanisms demonstrated for both cases. So which one is it?
Hansen will eventually have to answer for his use of fiddled with data and ignored inappropriate and unexplained experimental design changes, IE sensor drop out and various code manipulations for the non-random nature of his data.
In summary, this is a plot experiment – a very simple research design that is hard to mess up if done right, and as such Hansen’s is quite possibly the worst one I have ever seen. That it gets any kind of journal press is beyond me. No statistician I know of would touch this if such data were brought to him or her for analysis. It is not even worthy of a passing score for a 5th grade plot experiment.
Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. […] The agency is confident of the quality of this data
But they did not notice
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/12/corrected-nasa-gistemp-data-has-been-posted/
“After GISS’s embarrasing error with replicating September temperatures in the October analysis, the NASA GISTEMP website was down for awhile today (at least for me).”
“A later decision made Crater Glacier the official glacier name. Despite the volcanic activity, the glacier continued to advance and by mid-2008, the glacier completely encircled the lava domes.[2][3][4][5] In addition, new glaciers (rock or ice) have formed around Crater Glacier as well.” Inside Mount Saint Helens…
Perito Moreno Glacier in the SH, also advancing… Many glaciers are advancing… and with the increased snowfall, more will be advancing. Some people say that we are losing glaciers. Nothing could be further fro the truth. They are not lost. The water is still here on the earth and as the earth goes through it’s cycles, glaciers will increase, as some are already doing. Where is the study that compares all or even most of the glaciers on earth to their mass as of five years ago. So as I have cherrypicked a couple of glaciers, you can as easily cherrypick some that have declined… I suggest we not use this very small amount of earth’s ice to try to prove anything.
deech56 (10:26:23),
Ah, another Wood For Trees homemade chart. I like the WFT site. It’s fun to play around with, because you can show anything at all, depending on your initial conditions and time frames.
And I understand that when people get beaten over the head with alarming propaganda 24/7/365, it has an effect. Unless folks really look into it beyond the P.R. pronouncements of the IPCC, HadCRU, GISS, NOAA, etc., they begin to believe the ‘adjusted’ numbers.
I’m here to help. Keep in mind that everyone is being spoon fed adjusted numbers by people with an agenda, who stand to financially gain from the AGW scare.
The satellite data below are the most accurate; the rest are questionable. So, are you ready to see what’s really going on? OK, get your mouse clicker ready:
Our first example is a local GISS ‘adjustment’: click
And you can see the result of NOAA “adjustments” to the raw data: click
Bob Tisdale has some nice charts showing the result of “adjustments”: click
Here’s another view: click
GISS is expert at adjusting the final numbers upward: click
And so is NOAA. [blink gif – takes a few seconds to load]: click
Urban heat islands skew the numbers – always higher: click
But the UAH, RSS [satellite] data show what really happening: click
Another RSS chart, showing cooling: click
Global temperatures fluctuate. No one argues about that. But we’re at about the same global temperature we were at three decades ago. Here’s more satellite data. Where’s the AGW? click
Want to go back farther than 3 decades? OK: click
Let’s compare the satellite data [remember, it’s by far the most accurate] with the GISS “adjusted” data: click
Here’s the Met Office’s temperature algorithm, overlaid with a chart generated by random red noise: click
And here’s a CRU email explaining their newest hokey stick: click
Here’s a John Daly chart.Remember how happy the CRU crew were hearing about Daly’s death? Here’s one reason why [note the bogosity in the global result, vs each hemisphere]: click
More from CRU. Notice that if just one tree was eliminated [YAD061], the hokey stick disappears: click
This shows it better: click
We can see how they diddle with the temperature record by eliminating numerous stations – almost all of them in rural areas, thus increasing those showing the UHI effect: click
Another way of looking at the same shenanigans: click
The IPCC bases their “projections” [they refuse to use the term predictions, because predictions require validation – something they avoid at all costs]. So here are their ‘projections’: click
This explains the IPCC’s shenanigans: click
As you feverishly look for one or two things to nitpick about, keep in mind that those are not my charts, fabricated any old which-way on the WFT site. They are taken from a wide range of sources. And they all show why skeptics are skeptical of the CO2=CAGW claim.
Yes, the planet has been warming – naturally – in fits and starts since the LIA, and since the last great Ice Age before that. That is the basis for the long established theory of natural climate variability – the theory that must be falsified if the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is to replace it.
But as climatologist Roy Spencer says, “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Skeptics have nothing to prove. The burden is entirely on the alarmist contingent to falsify natural climate variability. So far they have failed.
CO2 has an unmeasurably small effect on temperature. When the alarmist crowd can empirically demonstrate, through testable, repeatable, and falsifiable measurements, that X amount of CO2 results in Y amount of temperature rise… wake me.
If the effect of CO2 was significant, the globe would be rapidly warming, as harmless, beneficial CO2 rapidly rises. But it’s not, it’s cooling – indicating that the effect of CO2 is minuscule and overstated, and is overwhelmed by many other factors.
Finally with regard to glaciers, there are over 160,000 glaciers on the planet. They are the world’s easiest things to cherry pick. Yes, most glaciers are currently receding. But CO2 is not the cause. I refer you to the WUWT thread on glaciers. Read & learn.
RE Mike Bryant (11:29:41) :
Cherry picking some that have declined? You can see the cumulative loss here. (Source) Do you have any published information that the World Glacier Monitoring Service is wrong?
Thanks for taking the time to post those links, Smokey. I particularly liked the “new calculus” of the IPCC, attempting to show that the rate of increase is accelerating – unbelievable that people are falling for this.
RE Smokey (11:40:35) :
Thanks for putting up all the charts, but I notice that most of the ones with trendlines start in 1997; some do not even go to the present. Besides the fact that the satellite data are an indirect measurement and is most useful for the analysis of temperatures at different atmospheric depths, you know that 10-12 years is to short a time to define a multi-decade trend. And the UAH chart from the beginning of the record (this one) that you posted does not have a trendline (you can’t make a conclusion based on one “May 09” point). I put the same data into WFT and came up with this. Looks like a trend of about 0.17°C/decade, which isn’t that far off from the GISTEMP results.
As far as the “financial gain” and propaganda stuff, please spare me; I am a scientist in another field (I’ve done work in animal models, HIV and vaccines, so I know contentious) and these arguments mean little to me. Show me the publications to support your points. Those are the standards I use in my own work, and I see no reason not to apply those same standards to climate science.
World Glacier Monitoring Service doesn’t appear to be monitoring very many glaciers. I counted about 90 in the link. A better name would be “Handful Glacier Monitoring Service.”
deech56 (12:26:40)
This is the same UN that initiated the Himalayan Glacier Melt fiasco??
Please tell me you don’t think they have a shred of credibility left. Also, at the end of the report they ask for much, much more to handle increased monitoring of the earth’s glaciers. Why do they need increased monitoring? Because the job is not being done well enough now.
Have you ever wondered why NASA hasn’t released satellite photos of even half the glaciers from five years ago and from today? I think I have an idea why that info isn’t available. Sad that their increasing politicization has hurt their credibility as well.
The glaciers contain less than 1% of the earth’s ice. Believe me that you don’t want that percentage to increase substantially.