Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Anthony has covered the National Geographic Northern Hemisphere temperature graph here. This is the graph under discussion.
Figure 1. Graph from November 1976 National Geographic article
Then I graphed it against the GISS Northern Hemisphere data. Here is that graph:
Figure 2. (Upper) Data from November 1976 National Geographic article, and GISS temperature data. Both datasets are for the Northern Hemisphere. (Lower) Difference between the two datasets (right scale).
A few notes, in no particular order.
1. Most of the ~ 0.2°C difference between the NatGeo and Giss data in the recent record is likely from the 1941 sea surface temperature (SST) adjustment. See here, here, and here for discussion of this adjustment. There is an abrupt jump 1940-1941.
2. For the middle part of the record, they track each other pretty closely.
3. There is another adjustment, again of ~ 0.2°C ,for unknown reasons, in the period from the start of the record to 1906. Again, there is an abrupt drop 1906-1907.
4. The existence of these two adjustments is shown by a discontinuity analysis (described here on page 2845 paragraph 2). This is the result of that analysis:
FIgure 2. Residual Sum of Squares Discontinuity Analysis. The breaks at 1906 and 1941 are clearly shown by this method of analysis.
So we have two major adjustments of ~ 0.2°C, for one of which we likely know the justification, and for the other, I have no idea.
Go figure …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Barry
That old graph is important because it’s a snapshot in time to measure Hansen’s honestyn against a time when Jim wasn’t running the show. So far, it looks like he doesn’t have any.
Even if a handful of raobcore in the tropics were faulty, even if the Ozone hole is causing the Antarctic to be especially cold (funny how NASA and Steig didn’t seem to remember that cooling with they’re “emo charts”), even if they decided to add in a couple points of “bucket heat”, Jimmy Hansen’s temperature line evolving from 1980 to 2007. These evens even if real were not settled or acknowledged until after, and yet there they be.
Barry, Here you´ll find some considerations about the stitch:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-temperature-decline-1940-78-the-cold-data-war-170.php
Ang remember, Even Hansens 1981 graph dives strongly after 1959, so the epicentre of differences is not likely to be something just around 1960, the Stitch.
“Some data in a magazine”. Please remember, the only reason that we have to look in these rather ancient (but peer reviewed high quality data) is that we know for a fact that data after these graphs has been modified thousands of time and allwas significant changes induce more warming/complience with IPCC viewpoints.
The fact that “random” adjustment so extremely often unduces more heat and compliance with the IPCC point of view is one of the main reasons for the whole skeptic movement!!!
So yes, its sad and odd why we have to dig up data like this, but remember, CRU just happens to have “lost” their original data. So we are just trying to find any available quality data. If the alarmists at GISS, CRU played openly, this would not be nessecary and there would be no skeptics. The alarmists created the skeptics 🙂
For brief intro to corrections i talk about see under “T”:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/t.php
K.R. Frank Lansner
Why am I comparing the 1970’s Budyko and Angell datasets to current datasets? Because the modern datasets have been altered by devotees of the AGW hypothesis.
Are you certain the older records did not suffer adjustments?
Please remember, the only reason that we have to look in these rather ancient (but peer reviewed high quality data)
its sad and odd why we have to dig up data like this
I was unable to find the raw data for the ’69 and ’77 papers. Can you direct me, please?
Now from Appinsys, at nice illustration of Hansen 1981 vs. 2007:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Temperature%20decline%20cold%20war/23Hansen19812007.jpg
And more, see updates in the bottum:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-temperature-decline-1940-78-the-cold-data-war-170.php
– not only did Hansen alter the trend 1940-75, he also made a HUGE adjustment around 1975, much more warming trend.
D. Patterson (21:19:25) : You replied, “ICOADS datasets include adjusted, quality controlled, and infill data,” to my statement, “The COADS data has not been corrected.”
Excuse my failure to be more specific. It should have read The COADS data has not received to the pre-1941 Folland correction.
You are correct. The COADS SST data is corrected. Refer to:
http://icoads.noaa.gov/coads1a_sources.html
And the COADS SST data is quality controlled. Refer to:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.coads.2deg.html#detail
Regarding infilling, the COADS SST data is spatially incomplete:
http://i49.tinypic.com/5vzml3.png
Where the HADISST data is more complete, reflecting the amount of infilling in early years:
http://i44.tinypic.com/1586×03.png
Manfred (21:16:21) : You replied, “Apply this to the COADS curve:
http://i44.tinypic.com/15oc83p.png
and you will get the maximum in the early 1940s and 60 years of cooling since then.”
There are different bucket biases for uninsulated and insulated buckets. After 1942, the bucket bias has been estimated at 0.08 deg C when compared to engine intake data, not the ~0.3 deg prior to 1941. As of the 2003 Rayner et al paper, the Hadley Centre was not correcting for the post 1942 bucket bias in their HADISST data, Refer to page 7, second column, second paragraph:
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf
Regards
CBH, Now also the Yamamoto 1975 confirms the stitch in “Matthews 1976”:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Temperature%20decline%20cold%20war/24StitchYamamoto.jpg
“Likely” that the stitch is done wring by the Japanese Meteorological institute?
This cliam appears without support.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-temperature-decline-1940-78-the-cold-data-war-170.php
Bob Tisdale (02:25:03) :
When we were discussing the SST and hurricanes a few years ago on ClimateAudit, I took a look at ICOADS to reference it in the discussions. To make a long story short, the discussions about buckets, engine inlet measurements, and a lot more revealed innumerable flaws in relying upon the ICOADS datasets for the purpose of determining SST. Although HADCRU makes certain claims about not interpolating, not infilling, and so forth, the representations about the measurements being raw observations and in situ values while true in certain respects remains misleading by omissions overall. The deeper you look, the more problematic the datasets appear to be with respect to using them for a purpose they were never intended to fulfill when measured and recorded. I really do find the use of the word “robust” to be a sign of trouble ahead:
D Patterson
This bucket business is nonsense. I knew someone who handled them and it was an extremely haphazard process. To believe that we can accurately measure temperature from the tiny fraction of the oceans that ships covered 100 or more years ago is surely completely bizarre. To this day they continue to have little merit.
Tonyb
Am I correct in presuming there is no data available for the older papers? And that we don’t know if those data were adjusted or not?
Has anyone audited the older papers with the kind of diligence as the modern records are treated, or are the the older papers somehow immune to that level of scrutiny?
As the hemispheric coverage seems to insufficient for the older papers, could the difference be put down more to better coverage? The data sets grew in size throughout the 80s as more stations were incorporated.
barry (01:04:44)
The practice of radically adjusting data is more modern.
As with many older (and newer) papers, it doesn’t exist or can’t be found. So what I do is just digitize it from the graphs. I’ve put it on line ‘specially for you here, we’re nothing if not a full service website.
w.
barry (16:54:50)
Oh, please. Your tone and implied accusations are so unpleasant. We just got notice of these papers, and you want them audited already? Fine … go audit them. I’ve done my part, what are you waiting for?
Likely not, for several reasons:
1) The residual discontinuity analysis shows a clear discontinuity in both 1906 and 1942.
2) Changes in the ’80s wouldn’t affect a paper published in the 70’s.
3) I would be very surprised if many new station records that were not known about in the 1970s have been “discovered” since then.
If we can leave the discussion on tone aside, I am curious about the standard applied to the old data sets. There is an assumption that they are a good benchmark and that the data had not been manipulated by the authors. Why?
I have read the recent posts on your site, Frank. I notice that there are discrepancies between the older temp profiles (fig 8) . Should this not make us wary of according them gold standard?
Has anyone compared the current global temp record from Japan with Budyko and the rest to see if a modern, independent temp record corroborates Budyko or GISS/HadCRU? I believe the Russians also produce one. It would be good to see how it all lines up.
I will try to find the Japanese and Russian modern temp records when I have time. I think they would be useful references.
Willis,
I was unable to find the data sets for the old papers and inquired after them here. It appears no one has seen them, and that “digging up old data” actually means finding old graphs.
We just got notice of these papers, and you want them audited already?
Not at all. My point is – if they haven’t been audited, how can such bold claims be made about them? Isn’t this the opposite standard to the one we’re trying to promote?
Willis, thank you kindly for the digitized data.
barry (19:03:03)
More than welcome. I’m working on a Mac, and I use a program called “GraphClick”, which makes the digitizing fairly easy and very accurate, but it’s a slow manual process … there’s assuredly something similar for PCs.
w.
barry (19:01:50) : edit
What “bold claims” have I made about the older data?
Barry:
” Should this not make us wary of according them gold standard?”
For now, we have “Mathews 76” that is based on peer reviewed Budyko, peer reviewed Angel and Korshover, and these have been stitched by the japanese meteorolgical institute, and we can see that other papers, including peer reviewed Yamamoto 75, is confirming the stitch. We see that the Stitch is not really violating the Hansen 1981 graph, and we see data backed up by High qualitu Raobcore.
So for now, these findings are as promising as you could possibly ask for, honestly.
“Gold” std. The “Gold´ish” about these data are that they appear high quality and BEFORE the ages of the big corrections. This is in it self “GOLD”.
Then compare with CRU, accused of cheery picking in Russia, Australia, Scandinavia and many other places, a CRU WHO CANT FIND THEIR DATA.
IS CRU GOld?
No off course not.
So when I compare, if any of the sets are “gold” I would prefer Budyko/Korshover/yamamoto/raobcore rather than CRU. But still you can find something not perfect if this is what we are looking for.
K.R. Frank Lansner
i would define the bottom line of the non insulated/insulated bucket / intake issue as follows:
1. The step adjustment assuming a sudden switch from non insulated buckets to intakes is false. A predominant use of intakes is only since the 1990s.
This means, there was no justification to adjust and reduce the large temperature increase in the early 1940s by a step function.
This means also, that climate models are not able to explain this increase.
2. The temperatures from 1942 to the 1990s should be adjusted according to the use of the 3 or 4 measurement types. The problem is, that the percentages appear to be not well known, however, it is quite clear that the correction would increase the earlier portion and taper out in the 1990s.
This means, that the measured temperature increase in the last 70 years would decrease or possibly disappear.
“Gold” std. The “Gold´ish” about these data are that they appear high quality and BEFORE the ages of the big corrections. This is in it self “GOLD”.
How did you ascertain that the values are raw, and not adjusted temps for the old papers?
Is it not possible that, for the period in question, the ‘adjusted’ temps might simply be (partly or wholly) the result of more data being added from a greater number of NH stations? What is the coverage like for the old papers? On this blog the argument has been made that even the modern record does not have enough coverage (eg, Bolivia) and therefore does not represent global temps well enough. How does this jive with records of poorer coverage? In effect you are arguing that the records are more accurate simply because they are pre-CRU, not because their intrinsic worth has been tested. Rather than asking the question, “how reliable are the old records compared to the modern ones,” you are working the assumption that they are more reliable. I think that some necessary skepticism is missing here.
There is a modern Japanese temperature record. Has it been checked against GISS, CRU and the older records? That would be a worthy comparison. The Russians also have a global temperature record. (I don’t know how to access these). Would it not be worth seeing if greater coverage for these records in their modern form (particularly the Japanese global record) has resulted in a different profile?
“particularly the Japanese global record”
Sorry, meant to say ‘Japanese NH’ temp record (preferably land stations only).
One last question before bed.
I noticed in the top post you are comparing with GISS NH land-ocean data. Is the older data land-ocean, too (excepting the radiosonde record, which appears to be global).?