Jo Nova has more from Frank Lansner on what older records, this time from weather balloons, tell us about recent adjustments to the temperature record. WUWT readers may recall Rewriting the decline where the graph from National Geographic below raises some questions about temperature graphs today.
Above: Matthews 1976, National Geographic, Temperatures 1880-1976
Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate emails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the measured temperatures. But Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs and that measured temperature did decline from 1960 onwards, sharply. But in the GISS version of that time-period, temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer.
The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from rabocore data.
Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.
You can see how similar the data from both methods is:
So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.
The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data: Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper).
What’s thought provoking is that the raobcore data above is for 30N-30S, covering all the tropics on both sides of the equator, and yet still shows the decline. That begs the question of whether the Southern Hemisphere data has been adjusted too. It would be good to see the raobcore sets further up towards the arctic. It would also be good to look at the Southern Hemisphere. Where are the data sets and peer reviewed papers on temperature from 1965 to 1980? I’d like to follow that up.
Three decades of adjustments
When did the “funny business” begin? By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs which were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and then 2007 further reduced the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.
(Click to see a larger image).
Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960’s to 1970’s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 rising (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).
Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s
And in 1974, there was the fore-runner of the “It’s worse than we thought” message.
…
Frank has more information and details on his blog Hide the decline.
If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.
“Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 – 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s”
Rogue decimal point?
Wonder what the latest excuse will be? Maybe the photos need to be adjusted?
“Who are you gonna trust? Me or your own eyes?”
Great work!
Thanks for the digging into other temperature data sets.
I hope other people will get to see this data and begin to see more clearly the manipulations that are being done in the name of science.
Great job!
Hansen seems to be the source of trouble. I am sure he will one day get to explain why he cheats. Right now, he hides from hearings and tough interviews. Have patience. His day will come. The Head chef cooks the numbers and wrote the recipes. His cook book will be written.
Massey coal or Peabody Coal can be the sue Chefs. I am sure this give Romm indigestion.
OT
Anthony….you might find this enteresting….Climate education.
http://www.pasco.com/earth/atmosphere/index.cfm
Remember the days when National Geographic was readable and GISS wasn’t the little kingdom existing solely to “verify” the hallucinations of James Hansen? Seems like an eternity ago …
Amazing, particular in view of the satellite data / weather balloon data “convergence problem”
You’d have to suspect there are other useful instrumental sources tucked away, waiting to come to be re-examined.
“If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late. Lansner also remind us of the photos taken in the arctic by submarines that surfaced around the north pole.”
Great stuff!
Just confirms what we always deep down knew, having lived through the period, the temperatures I experienced were not as GISS would have it.
This is delicious, vindication for the sceptics who knew we were being fed a crock.
Good work Mr. Lansner.
Sounds like another “nail in the AGW coffin”. I’m betting recent “hottest years on record” they keep harping about are just that–hottest on RECORD, not at the THERMOMETER.
I was a new instructor at the University of Idaho in 1974. Your “word art” image of the U.S. Nat. Sci. Board, 1974 message about the cooling is the sort of thing I remember. I taught introductory physical geography and that includes sections on the atmosphere, world climates, and atmospheric processes. I used two days (if I recall correctly) to discuss the impending cold period that everyone seem sure of. My main points were (a) what the records at the time showed, and (b) using historical documents, that cold periods of Earth’s history were known for difficult times for human societies.
Two names come to mind – Lamb and Bryson – as source material for some of the ideas. Somewhere I might still have a folder (the paper type) full of clippings and documents. As regards to what the Earth is up to, I think we have a lot more data now but not a lot more insight.
Hansen, you’ve got a lot of splainin’ to do!
Central Europe record composed from 2 up to 14 stations, covering eastern half of Slovakia and bits of Poland, Ukraine and Hungary:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_20-22.5E_47.5-50N_n_mean1.png
80ties are colder than beginning of 20th century. Quite similar to Armagh or CET record.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/215098/cetarmagh.jpg
http://climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
Looks that for NH, the hidden tree ring decline has been still overemphasized, but not that off.
Ian McLeod (09:49:39) :
Hansen, you’ve got a lot of splainin’ to do!
————————————
Fat chance !!!!!!!!!
Let the adjustment apologists now enter the arena.
I will never forget that picture I saw when I was 7 years old….
of a submarine surfaced at the North Pole in 1959.
It was only thanks to some posters here that I was able to understand why that sub was in open waters in March, surrounded by ice in the distance.
Looks like detrended 20th century NH record would fit those old charts quite well:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/detrend:0.8/from:1900
Don’t count on Hansen doing a mea culpa. Like politicians, activists rarely admit they are wrong. If Hansen is accused of cheating or misrepresenting the data or other inappropriate activity , he will be defended vigorously. If Hansen is found to have done wrong, the whole thing will be swept under the rug and all his past supporters will pretend he and his work never existed.
Anecdotal Evidence for the Decline:
I remember reading an article in the Reader’s Digest in the late 40’s or early 50’s, raising the alarm that the nation’s food supply might be in danger. Why? Because nearly all our corn then came from hybrids engineered during the excessively warm period two or three decades earlier. As climate returned to normal [cooling!], corn engineered to grow in hot weather would suffer, and the stocks of older corn had been discarded.
As a retired physician/scientist I have been sceptical of AGW for several years for two main reasons. First has been the lack of a sound Popperian approach (hypotheses cannot be proven, only disproven or falsified) to the problem of rising temperatures. Second has been the lack of evidence that atmospheric CO2 per se is the primary driver of climate temperature. (Correlation NEVER proves causation but lack of correlation disproves causation).
Now that the primary data themselves (reported temperatures) have been so discredited It seems necessary to declare that AGW is a figment of someone’s imagination.
Retsci
And what was the crap they were trying to use after Willis posted about Darwin Zero? That the adjustments did not affect the trend? Seems like that is pretty good evidence that, yes, it did affect the trend.
Compared to Jimmie Hansen, Bernie Madoff was a rank amateur. Madoff suckered a bunch of people with money to invest; Hansen’s suckered the entire planet.
infamita.
Henry chance (09:22:21) : …sue Chefs….”
Groan.
I posted this comment today on Frank’s very good website;
” I do have a sense of Deja Vu, because as someone who primarily looks at this from a historic aspect I had believed (wrongly) that everyone was by now aware of the warming period in the 1920’s/1930’s and the subsequent decline you have highlighted here. No matter how often people like you or me make reference to it then the past becomes forgotten (by warmists) and new hysteria breaks out!
Having just finished re reading Hubert Lambs book ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ it is obvious that he took this cooling period as completely factual and made many references to it. He wrote that book in 1982 so it covers up to the same period you identify.
He revised the book in 1994 and obviously remained sceptical of mans impact (but was pleased at greater environmental awareness)
This ‘adjustment’ has other consequences of course. I have previously written of the cooler 1970’s which led to a high level of arctic sea ice which coincided with the advent of satellite measurements in 1979. The subsequent ice decline is therefore from a peak and has reverted to a level seen in the 1930’s and 1850’s amongst many other periods. In other words it is not ‘unprecedented.’
Looking at the current record of events this cold period and extensive ice has largely disappeared, so the context to subsequent ice melt is missing
Tonyb
Is there an online source for the three ’80, ’87, ’07 charts?
ClimateAudit a few years ago showed that this process modifies older temperatures with each update of the database. What is shown here is the same with snap shots in 1980, 1987 and 2007.
As I recall, Hansen takes NCDC data and modifies it in a manner that supposedly accounts for UHI. Not sure how that can be justified when the end product is to cool older temps while raising new ones, but that’s the claim. It could be though that the NCDC homogenization is what is at work.
With Tom Karl now in charge of all climate “science”, I somehow doubt we’ll see any government funding being dedicated to an investigation of this issue.
An even better “subs at the pole” picture;
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/NP1987.jpg
Dr. Joseph Fletcher
ICOADS: International Comprehensive (Consolidated) Ocean and Atmosphere Data Sets
Global Climate MAESTRO
source: http://sharpgary.org/FletcherForecast.html
Dr. Sharp’s site also includes a timeline and source references to ENSO events for this period and earlier if its of any help.
Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Organized for you by: Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D.
source: http://sharpgary.org/1896-1929.html
1896 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1899-1900 ENSO Warm Event
1900 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1901-02 ENSO Warm Event
1904-05 ENSO Warm Event
1907 ENSO Warm Event
1910-11 ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
1911-12 ENSO Warm Event
1913-14 ENSO Cool Event ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
1914-15 ENSO Warm Event
1917 ENSO Cool Event
1918-1920 ENSO Warm Event
1919 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1923 ENSO Warm Event
1924 ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
1925-26 ENSO Warm Event
1925-34 General warming trend begins (North Atlantic)
1928 ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
1929-31 ENSO Warm Event
1930-31 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1932 ENSO Warm Event
1938 ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
1939-1941 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1943-44 ENSO Warm Event
1946 end warm period
1951-53 ENSO Warm Event
1955 ENSO ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1957-58 ENSO Warm Event (Pacific-wide)
1961 ENSO Cool Event (Eastern Tropical Pacific)
Most NCDC statewide temperature records show this decline. Here is one from Alabama.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=02&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=001-00
Makes you see things in a new light doesn’t it
This is actually fairly stunning. I knew that blaming CO2 for any warming observed was foolish. But seeing the historical results from a publicly funded scientist progressively alter to demonstrate a warming the further into the future we get… well that I didn’t expect.
Honestly, is there any possible justification for what Hansen has apparently done here? It seems that each successive report changes the number for a year that was measured decades ago. Is Hansen spending all his time going over his old notes of how those numbers were taken and making corrections? Even that boggles the mind.
We must remember that there were sent Clima-Gate emails to many countries all over the world, so there was a widespread “cooperation” to “Hide the decline”.
I wrote to my own country “contact”, which appeared as recepient of some emails. the same day climate-gate happened and he didn’t answer me. In every country, as it has been shown here at WUWT weather stations were cherry picked and all those which recorded lower temperatures just disappeared.
Re: the three GISS plots all in the same image
This is a very compelling comparison.
Are these three plots copied from journal articles? Could you plese cite the references?
Best Regards,
Tom Moriarty
ClimateSanity
The Three Decades of Adjustments Graph pretty much says it all.
OT:
How NASA spends US taxpayers money in fostering AGW propaganda using AGW propagandists:
From Scott Mandia’s blog. Mandia is a vocal advocate of AGW, physics professor in some community college, graduated with a MSc. degree from Penn State University, the home of Michael Mann…
“I am currently listed as a co-investigator (co-I) on a NASA grant proposal that is to be submitted this month. The principal investigator (PI) is a colleague of mine who I will call Prof. X and the grant budget is requesting $437,232.67 over a three year period. Funding from the proposal will be used to create a learning institute to educate secondary education teachers about climate change. These teachers will be trained to use climate data from NASA in order to incorporate the latest climate change science and data into their curricula. Essentially, NASA will be using some of its funds so that our children will become more informed.”
Nicely said hey? That’s simply brainwashing teachers at taxpayers’ expense.
Read this http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%e2%80%93-part-i/
Hatshepsut was the 1st pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. The subsequent pharaoh, Thutmose III, attempted to erase Hatshepsut from history. Many of her likenesses were destroyed or were defaced. Archeologists have struggled to understand the social environment that led to the attempts to erase Hatshepsut from history.
I wonder if archeologist a thousand years from now will struggle to understand why our culture tried to erase the MWP from history.
It deserves repeating, again: Maybe the reason the plurality of maximum US state records were set in the decade of the 1930s was because it was warm then. Canada was warm that decade as well.
http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Critique_Of_Ncar_Cherry_Picking_Tempeature_Record_Study.pdf
As Steve Milesworthy found, that old graph is based on US and some European stations. And the current GISS US record shows exactly that “missing decline”. It’s not missing at all. Your taking a US measure and claiming discrepancies based on global temps. They are just different.
One see’s here of course the benefit of archiving and SHARING the data supporting any publication. It’s not enough to “point” to a source in a paper as that source may change over time or be lost. Maybe Hansen kept his old data set. Asking him might be an interesting experience.
Carbon market update;
“EUROPE’S emissions trading system was in uproar yesterday amid a mounting scandal over “recycled” carbon permits.
Two carbon exchanges were forced to suspend trading as panic hit investors fearful that they had bought invalid permits.
BlueNext and Nord Pool, the French and Nordic exchanges, suspended trading in certificates of emission reduction (CERs) when it emerged that some had been illegally reused.
Concern that used and worthless permits were circulating caused the spot price of the certificates to collapse, from €12 ($17.87) a tonne of carbon to less than €1.”
European emission trading rocked by scandal over recycled carbon permits
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/european-emission-trading-rocked-by-scandal-over-recycled-carbon-permits/story-e6frg90o-1225842148852
In the referenced PDF, I adjusted the 3 decades of adjustment for scale. The change is still dramatic.
Juraj V. (09:57:47) : , what I like about your (and other) real long term records is the cyclic nature of values, similar up and down trends are clear to see, not the almost straight line the IPCC like to show for pre 1970.
The 1710, 1810 and 1920 upward trends look very similar.
Juraj V. (10:05:41) : Looks like detrended 20th century NH record would fit those old charts quite well:
Yes it does look like it.
Steve Goddard (10:49:13) :
You will have the AGW croud jumping on you for cherry picking LOL.
Still can’t get Tips & Notes to work so have to post this link here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article7066030.ece
It is about the risk of indoctrination of kids which is making it ever more difficult to break the AGW hold on public.
I wish there would be more commentary about those subs. It seems to me, if they were near the north pole when they surfaced (and I know they were), then the melting/flooding argument of the alarmists is invalidated. Given the recent historical precedence, most, if not all alarmist hysteria becomes moot. They could cry about melting caps as much as they want and world could say, “who cares?”
As far as “adjustment” to historical data, we’ve known they’ve done this for years. Though it is fun to see how often and with casual disregard to our memory that they’ve rewritten history. I wonder, 100 years from now, what information will be available to the people? Will it be the true temp readings allowing the reader to make their own adjustments, or will it be the “homogenized” and “washed” temp readings? Will the skeptics even be a footnote in a history book?
As with my previous posting about mass graves in the Siberian permafrost, this comment is offered as anecdotal and second/third hand. Personally I trust my sources more than any “official” government handouts.
A friend who sailed on the Northern Sea Route (SevMorPut) had many conversations with experienced Arctic mariners and ice pilots. According to them this seaway along the north coast of Russia and Siberia has shown significant change over the years in sea ice cover during the brief summer shipping seasons. Sea ice in any particular place, of course, is subject to various atmospheric and oceanic influences. When it was officially opened in the 1930s and through the World War II and immediate post-war period the traverse was relatively open. Indeed, some even credit the unobstructed shipping lanes with helping save Russia from the Nazi invasion. Then travel conditions deteriorated (greater ice extent and thickness) during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Recently there has been a partial return to the more open pack of the past. This has become a major public issue in Russia today.
One of my pet “projects”.
Search AMS Website for “Radiation Heat Transfer”
As this:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=search-simple&searchtype=simple&previous_hit=10&lname_boolean=ALL&lname=&fname_boolean=ALL&fname=&affiliation_boolean=ALL&affiliation=&issn=All&anywhere_boolean=ALL&anywhere=Radiation+Heat+from+the+Atmosphere&title_boolean=ALL&title=&abstract_boolean=ALL&abstract=&biblist_boolean=ALL&biblist=&keyword_boolean=ALL&keyword=&year_start=&month_start=&year_end=&month_end=&volume_start=&issue_start=&volume_end=&issue_end=&hits_per_page=10&sort=relevance#results
Then, after finding the 10,000 hits..try to find the papers on actual measurements.
THEN put together an index of measurements and see if “overlapping areas” and conditions can be found.
Trace the radiation heat losses (at night particularily) and their changes (if any) down to location and time.
See if there is a significant change over the last…oh, say 100 years people have done such measurements with various radiometers.
Hard work.
Probably NULL result. But significant! (Similar to the Ballon Temp. measurements of this article.)
Max
I have recently done temperature reconstructions for Canada using data from the Environment Canada climate site. I did this for two separate regions – south of 60N and north of 60N. I used major reporting stations which were generally at airports. The data I was able to obtain was went back to 1945 in the south and 1948 in the north.
My graphs show a very similar pattern to the Raobcore graph from 1960 onwards. Canada data shows a noticeable declining trend from 1960 to about 1975 similar to the Raobcore. It then levels off to about 1980 and then has an upward trend to about 2000 before leveling off again. All in all, very similar to the Raobcore data. Maybe our Canadian data is still pure as our driven snow.
Anthony, a bit OT. the following url was posted in comments on Spencer’s last contribution, and deserves attention.
Gene Zeien (09:31:41) : WUWT http://justdata.wordpress.com/
My observations:
Where has all the warming gone? Start ca 1880 and end ca 2000 and we have warming. Start ca 1975 and end 2006 and we have warming. Start and end fairly mid range (LT average), – no warming. Start ca 1936 and end 2009 – clear cooling. Note 1990s peak lower than 1930s peak.
One thing I notice is that the first graph shows a curve called “mean” the second has no description, last graph calls the curve “average”. In statistics “mean” number can be the same as “average”, but not necessarily so. A quick reference to Wikipedia shows three main ways of computing a mean number. Arithmetic mean is normally considered the same as average, but there are two other means- Geometric and Harmonic.
Am is greater or equal Gm, which is greater or equal Hm.
Applying different methods to processing the data on different occasions will produce different graphs. We just need to know how these curves were computed to make an informed opinion which is the most appropriate.
When alarmists are reminded of the global cooling panic of the 70s they use the current, substantially adjusted data to try and dismiss it as a minor and inconsequential issue.
This neatly undermines that argument.
So I’m sitting here thinking to myself and saying, “self” if Dr. Joseph Fletcher’s research was the basis for ICOADS (International Comprehensive (Consolidated) Ocean and Atmosphere Data Sets) what methods did he use and, if they are as invalid as his pick-up of historical ENSO patterns for future projections as illustrated on http://sharpgary.org/FletcherForecast.html , is this the basis of the flaw in the data sets?
From everything I’ve read so far, the data set problems started in the 1980s. Was it deeply flawed prior to this point and are the adjustments a means of compensating for a knowledge gap?
You are comparing totally different things here. Matthews drew a graph based on US temperatures. The RAOBCORE measurements are tropical, and not surface level. And you compare these to a totally different global measure.
You cite Angell (1975) in support. But in speaking of global temperatures, he says
“Between 1958 and 1965 there was a significant cooling averaging about 0.3°C over much of the globe, but since 1965 the temperature variations have been small. During the past few years there has been a slight warming in most latitudes.”
And he gives (Table 1) surface temps
1959-65 -0,25
1965-71 -0.08
1971-74 0.04
which is pretty much what you’ll find in GISS for global surface temperatures.
MaxL: The warmist camp and its minions in government agencies just haven’t gotten to it yet
In the referenced PDF, I adjusted for scale. Here is the link
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Byj52912YlSsYzNiM2UwN2QtZmMxYi00OWQwLWFlZjgtYjY5OTQwYTRlMjEy&hl=en
Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
Nine tropical radiosonde stations in this 63-station network were identified as anomalous in Angell et al. (2003). Upon removal of these 9 stations, the resulting 54-station network results in significant differences in many of the times series and their associated temperature trends. Full details are given in Angell et al. (2003), which will allow users to better judge the utility of the current 63-station-network time series. Please watch this space for the coming addition of corrected, 54-station time series. (4/30/2009)
I hope this gets some wider airplay as this gives a whole new meaning to “hide the decline” – get it to Monckton, Imhofe, ICECAP, Foxnews, etc – it only becomes a nail in the coffin if enough people see it.
There’s got to be some catch. This is absolute dynamite
But in the end it will be all a waste of time unless you start being a bit more professional
I’m handling around dozen press releases a week, and I it’s blantantly obvious to me that the press need to be fed stories almost ready for publication, you can’t expect them to take highly technical writing and try and make sense of it! As I have said, these articles are dynamite, but that’s because I understand the subject, but for those who don’t understand the subject, in their present form they are useless to the media, even if they bother to go and look for them.
Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations on Temperature Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison with Other Analyses
James K. Angell
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?SESSID=02a2ec8386ab1c5dfa6e4e6a60f5ddc9&request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F2763.1
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics…
I think this article should be front page stuff here. Shows what has gone wrong with a lot of the climate statistics, though it has nothing to do with climate itself.
Peter
It’s obvious where the last ice age is coming hoax occurred.
So they hide two declines?
It looks like the graph comparing the balloon data to the satellites from 75S to 75N shows that all three temperature sets show a global warming trend of +0.2 degrees per decade. That would seem to confirm the IPCC projections and indicate that we’re in for at least two degrees C of warming on a global average this century, assuming the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases don’t further increase the warming rate and that the oceans instantly respond to forcings (i.e. there’s no warming in the pipeline). If either or both of those assumptions are wrong (i.e. the tens of thousands of scientists who study the problem are correct and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases increases the warming and/or there is warming in the pipeline because the oceans store more heat than the land and atmosphere), then we would see more than 2 degrees of warming.
Also, the Raobcore data in figure showing the temps from 30S to 30N looks like it is flat over the period from 1960 to 1980. Your trend line starts before 1958, the period before the Raobcore data begins. How did you calculate that?
Wren (12:23:18) :
“Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”
You will have to ask Hansen.
There was a huge increase in the size of the North Atlantic fisheries right after WWII. This phenomena has, in the past, been associated with warmer weather. The idiot greens have lately been trying to link it to a reduction in pressure from fishing fleets during the war years. The do this to try to convinces school kids that fishing is BAD.
Change the facts to make man look evil, then change the explanations for the effects of the now hidden facts to make man look evil.
Nick Stokes (12:02:57) :
“Matthews drew a graph based on US temperatures.”
The mathews graphs covers 2 scientific publications as mentioned in the present article. None of these where just US temps.
Could you please document this claim?
K.R. Frank Lansner
Wren said: “Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”
To remove the earlier cooling that does not correlate with the measured carbon dioxide trend, perhaps.
Wren (12:23:18) :
Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?
The same reason why he adjusts downwards other historical references. So the temps today can look much warmer. Which, is also why we don’t deal in real temp terms in favor of anomalies. As long as you can “adjust” history downward, then you have a never ending ability to show heating.
“Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”
Same reason as for “denying” the 1920’s-30’s egg-frying-on-the-street
warming, or the MWP or the LIA or even the RWP.
The curve/slant is everything. The trend must be clear and unidirectional.
Should people get the idea or be reminded of past climate fluctuations of almost any kind, they might question the concept of the linear, inexorably rising, with no possibility of natural variability, upward curve that serves
the political purposes of this scheme.
——-
“Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.”
Antonio San
Scott Mandia is a very nice guy who used to post here regularly and believes in the AGW hypothesis. The system is geared towards those propogating alarm, but he is a sincere guy who debates in a courteous manner. So don’t blame him, blame the system. Its exactly the same in the UK-its virtually impossible to get anti AGW funding and our kids are being steadily brainwashed.
“Max Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Tonyb
Unfortunatelly at moment (2010) the UAH data show a much bigger temperature increase than the GISS data, if compared to the same reference period, for example 1979-1998. January and February already were higher and we have to expect the same for march, which will end clearly above the old record from 1998 (UAH TLT data set).
Back around 1970 there were at least 4 reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere’s tremperature record. They were by Mitchell (1973), Spirina (1971), Budyko (1959) updated by Asakura (1969), and Starr and Oort (1973). All of them show a marked cooling from 1940 to the early 70s. Staar and Oort, for example, show a 0.6 C cooling between May 1958 and April 1963.
The cooling reported by all these authors brought the temperature down to where it was about equal to what it was between 1900 and 1910. That is quite a bit different conclusion than CRU and GISS have if you looking at their reconstructions. They are circa 0.4 C warmer.
See http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more/ for more discussion.
Ahh, this is where you have your US-idea from:
“Nick Stokes (11:11:00) :
As Steve Milesworthy found, that old graph is based on US and some European stations. ”
Steve also writes on the blog on hidethedecline.eu, and its wrong. He thought that stations in the budyko writing where only US and UK, but that goes for the stations budyko use for a solar activity curve – an entirely different matter.
No Budyko and Korshover and thus “mathews 76” is Northern hemisphere – this is what the peer reviewed scientific writings states.
By using 30S-30N in stead of NH for raobcore, I am UNDERESTIMATING the temperature decline 1940-75. The thing is, all sources of temperature data agrees, that the temperature decline 1940-75 was bigger in the NH than SH.
So when not using NH but just tropic, and STILL get a raobcore supporting a strong decline 1940-76 like Matthews 76, this means that we have every reason to believe that Mathews 76 decline is rather true.
So why not use raobcore NH? Well as i explained in my original article at hidethedecline.eu , I had trouble finding Raobcore data NH back from 1958 easy available on the net.
I may be blind(!) looking te wrong places, but if you can find the Raobcore data all the way back from 1958, for NH, Global and SH, you would be my hero.
If you do please let me know, for examble in the comments of hidethedecline.eu.
K.R. Frank Lansner
Why was the trend adjusted? Look at the original paper and find out.
“These include the use of additional observations, the development of comprehensive uncertainty estimates, and technical improvements that enable, for instance, the production of gridded fields at arbitrary resolution.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
I considered comparing Hansen to Blondlot, but decided against it as Blondlot was simply mistaken. Perhaps a better comparison would be Kellerman, Cook, or Bellesiles? Or some of the racists “scientists”, pre WWII?
“Ideology first”.
Nick Stokes,
Sure the graphs are of different methods from different times and places.
The point is that the different methods, times and places show pretty much the same thing: It was warmer then it got colder then it got warmer.
If you trust these snapshots from an era when science was a little less political (never apolitical), and a little less conflicted by grant money (never unconflicted), a reasonable doubt must be considered.
Having served in the aviation part of the Navy for 24 years and watched weather balloons get launched from Bermuda I would believe that in the archives of all NAS’s (Naval Air Stations) there rests historical records as far back as anyone would care to go.
I see that we have a wise man amongst us who knows the reasons for the adjustments done to past temperature records.
Nick Stokes, maybe you can explain to me why the adjustments to a given moment in the past of the GISS temperature series are done again and again, each time levelling the differences more and each time making the decline mentioned by Frank smaller?
I never quite understood that.
Anthony, Can we get the discussion focused on the issues Nick Stokes raised and Frank has responded to. It strikes me that this analysis is potentially significant and therefore deserves to be fully checked out. Any chance of getting some of CA folks involved?
Randy (09:15:39) :
Great work!
Thanks for the digging into other temperature data sets.
I hope other people will get to see this data and begin to see more clearly the manipulations that are being done in the name of science.
Great job!
Just spread the word! Give others a link to WUWT for a site seeking some real truth.
MaxL could you get in touch with me directly via my blog….Canadian reconstructions are always of interest.
“James Sexton (13:09:31) :
Wren (12:23:18) :
Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”
No, the temperature rise 1979-today is in fact tied to the UAH and RSS measurements.
In other words, temperature rise after 1979 is a “constant”. You cant have GISS raising double as fast as UAH.
So, a big decline of 0,4 K after 1940 means that todays temperatures are much more compareble with 1940 temperatures, the “A” version:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Temperature%20decline%20cold%20war/1.jpg
Re: Frank Lansner (Mar 18 13:22),
“So why not use raobcore NH? Well as i explained in my original article at hidethedecline.eu , I had trouble finding Raobcore data NH back from 1958 easy available on the net.”
Well, if you can’t find it, that’s that. It’s no excuse to substitute a quite different set and then complain about discrepancies. And TLT is lower troposphere – it’s not even surface data.
“No Budyko and Korshover and thus “mathews 76″ is Northern hemisphere – this is what the peer reviewed scientific writings states.”
Well, it’s not what Matthews states – he doesn’t seem to say what his plot is the temperature of. But it looks very like current GISS US plots. Budyko’s data stops in 1960, and his Fig 1 shows no notable decline in the 50’s. And Angell (1975) completely denies your claim of a NH decline (as opposed to US) in the 60’s and 70’s. His Table 1 surface figs for NH are:
1959-65 -0,22
1965-71 0.01
1971-74 0.01
This is actually a greater increase than your CRU plot (previous post) shows.
Greenleaves (13:37:35)
The production of gridded fields will only reflect the robustness of the adjustments.
Here are examples of the CRU algorithm adjusting not one station but two in the same location downwards by the best part of a fair bit and discarding all the data from 1900 – 1945 and cheery picking the 1890’s.
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/gerojones1999line.jpg
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/kaljones1999line.jpg
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjones1999.jpg
Then there is another adjustment on the one station where I compared with the six closest stations by checking the RSQ correlation over 11 year periods to .
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekajones1999line.jpg
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/meekarsq.jpg
That one minor adjustment appears non robust to me.
Everyone should visit http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=510 , download the data and work out what stations CRU used and what they did to them in your neck of the woods.
“Greenleaves (13:37:35) :
Why was the trend adjusted? Look at the original paper and find out”
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to explain the revisions to GISStemp as the paper is by Jones et.al. and talks about HadCRUT.
Climate Kate (13:14:21) :
“Unfortunatelly at moment (2010) the UAH data show a much bigger temperature increase than the GISS data”
We’re in a very big el Nino, like the 1998 event. Similar spike in troposphere temperature proxy to 1998. I think we’re all waiting with interest to see what will happen after the el Nino dissipates.
As an avid denier of AGW I proudly announce that yes 2010 seems to be one of the warmest years of satellite records for the first 3 months anyway (similar to 2005)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
and it means absolutely nothIng in climatic terms. If it was the coldest would say same. LOL All assuming their is no satellite drift of course but i trust AMSU 100%
previous just go to amsu and check all boxes to compare at 600 mb
“18 03 2010 mkelly (13:57:24):Having served in the aviation part of the Navy for 24 years”
Oh, yeah. “mkelly” is right. Cecil Field in Florida, at least, also had a cloud cover altitude measuring device.
I think most military bases had weather recording stations on them. Good for tracking trends, and usually placed right for recording.
Good luck trying to find the records, though.
Oh, from the Jones paper cited by greenleaves:
“If it is working well, variance adjustment
should reduce the random noise in the temperature
values introduced by having only
a limited number of observations, but leave
the real underlying temperature variations unchanged.”
So the decline mentioned by Frank must have been noise, successfully reduced to leave the real underlying temperature variations unchanged. I see.
Maybe Hansen uses the same algorithm in GIStemp, in that case the 0.3 decline would be noise for him as well. And with each revision of GIStemp he got better at reducing the noise while at the same time leaving the real underlying temperature variations unchanged.
They tested the method with synthetic datasets. How did they generate the synthetic datasets?
“A synthetic dataset was constructed using
an all forcings run [Tett et al., 2006] of the
HadCM3 [Gordon et al., 2000] GCM.”
That’s interesting. They have found a way to make their GCM models influence and manipulate, oh excuse me, adjust is the word, adjust the historical track record. By proving that their adjustment method works well on synthetic data they justify running it on real world data. Hmmm… i don’t think the synthetic data can look very much like real world data so i’m very suspicious here. They use some statistical criteria to prove that it’s all fine but i’d love to see a real statistician have a look at that.
So at least i know this “trick” now, thanks greenleaves.
Weather balloon data backs up missing decline
Then hide it. Tha’s what a real climatologist would do. That is ‘standard practice’.
Didn’t you know that? I thought this was a science blog.
One more thing:
…not to my surprise, the Jones document describing the adjustment method doesn’t contain the substrings “spectrum”, “Fourier”, “Laplace” or “Nyquist”…
They describe using a 21-term binomial filter for smoothing AFTER ADJUSTMENT. Hmm. So they just don’t care for any spectral distortion their adjustment method does it seems, only using things like covariance as criteria, so, very simple statistical criteria. This looks like a very botched way to treat your measurement data.
I recall some years back the weather balloon data being dismissed as unreliable. Could this be why? I bought that then, as I didn’t realise how corrupt climate science had become.
Steve Goddard 10:49:13—-Alabama update
Played golf near Orange beach(coast of Al) and I know it was only weather, but I had a miserable time because it was so cold for us Southerners. Never got out of the fifties and a cold wind-much colder than normal. My golf game suffered too! I heading for Buffalo Wy. next month and the Big Horn mountains and maybe to Thermopolis for a dip in their hot mineral springs. And,– Maybe a wee dram of scotch too!
It only dawns now on me that the paper by Jones cited by Greenleaves is just one of their latest adjustment methods – this one must be younger than 2004 as they mention von Storch’s pseudo-proxy method (nice one, we have pseudo proxies now!).
So we’re up against full time employees who invent a new number-fudging algorithm to distort the past every now and again, get it greenlighted by “peer-review” by one of their pals, rewriting history again and again to their liking. Everything that doesn’t fit is noise and gets erased.
Under these circumstances, it plainly makes no more sense at all to even talk about the past as whatever you say now about a given year in the past will be wrong after a few months.
The biggest evil here is the fact that they benchmark their adjustment algorithm inventions with another of their inventions, the GCM du jour plus a random number generator. This way everything gets tainted, and after they have spoiled their measurement data enough they will probably benchmark the next version of the GCM against the spoiled measurement data. I guess you can remove yourself from reality pretty quick with such a spiralling data dependency.
Good riddance.
It is time to RESET all university, epa, nasa and other co-opted organizations public funding to zero.
Then appoint a blue-ribbon panel to review each project before another dime is spent.
We need to put the make-believe “scientists” in an asylum to protect us from them and vice-versa.
1.The Budyko(1976) temperature data which appears to have been used in the National Geographic article was for the *northern hemisphere* only. The Hansen graphs you then compare them with are *global*. You are not comparing like with like.
If you wanted to do a fair comparison you could look at the GISS Northern Hemisphere data here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Here you will see that (surprise, surprise) the 70s come out cooler than the 1955-65 period. No conspiracy.
2.The RAOB core data that you plotted showing the data from the late-50s onwards is for the *tropics only* -again you are not comparing like with like. I’m not quite sure what your point was with that.
3.You comparison, supposedly showing changes to the data after the fact is far from convincing. Obviously, new studies using different selections of station data and different analysis techniques will give different numbers. The position of your blue line is very sensitive to the short, sharp dip around 1965. You can pick points from the series which change both ways.
For example, in your 3 Hansen plots figure, look at the peak around 1940 and compare this with the red line.
Cooling between 1940 peak and 1955-1965:
1980 paper = -0.10C
1987 paper = -0.15C
2007 paper = -0.15C
Why don’t you accuse Hansen of introducing artificial cooling into the global temperature time series?
4.”If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, this rewrites the entire claim of unprecedented recent warming.”
Which data that you’ve shown has allowed you to conclude that 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990s? The “National Geographic” northern hemisphere data only go up to 1975. The RAOB data are for the tropics only and incidently match very closely to tropics data in the GISS data (linked in (1) above). The global GISS data show the 1990s to be considerably warmer than 1958.
5.As you suddenly have such huge faith in the observational records provided by satellites and RAOBCORE (“both accurate, reliable tools” apparently), I would like to point out that both of these (in your figure) independently confirm a global warming trend of approx 0.2K/decade (1979-2008).
Hmmm, perhaps Hansen took the data and scaled everything to doughnuts…
http://i47.tinypic.com/oaccd0.gif
Heh….
So hiding the decline in the 60’s & 70’s accomplished what for the warmers? It just makes the temperature rise over the last 30 years less. Ay cooling, and nobody denies there was cooling (this is the first I heard there was mild warming), is attributed to increased aerosols in that period anyway. With cleaner air over much of the NH (excluding Asia), the cooling effect is removed, and warming takes over due to rising CO2. Thats the argument anyways.
But it does highlight the dangers of adjusted data. There should be a rule that all data should be presented in its raw form as well as it’s adjusted form, so we can see the magnitude of the adjustments.
Jeremy (10:51:16) :
… seeing the historical results from a publicly funded scientist progressively alter to demonstrate a warming the further into the future we get… well that I didn’t expect.
No one expects the Hansen modification 🙂
I certainly didn’t. We have a record of his gradualism; his slight-of-hand.
Antonio San (11:00:18) :
Comment from the blog you linked by ‘mspelto’:
‘If a scientist just wanted to make money is it more prudent to join the tens of thousands pursuing climate change science and finding reinforcing data on AGW or would it be easier to make a name and a buck, from the press, speaking engagements or grants by being one of the handful of skeptics?’
Says it all really doesn’t it?
Ibrahim (12:39:47) :
Effect of Exclusion of Anomalous Tropical Stations on Temperature Trends from a 63-Station Radiosonde Network, and Comparison with Other Analyses
James K. Angell
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?SESSID=02a2ec8386ab1c5dfa6e4e6a60f5ddc9&request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F2763.1 (hope this works – comment sections have a bad habit of erasing my emphasis’ at random)
You ever go fishing for some specific technical paper in the google scholar? Almost always you get a referal to the abstract, and maybe if you are extreemly lucky a pdf that will open.
But the vast majority of searches will end at the abstract unless you buy the thing or present your academic affiliation code.
In the information age there really is a caste system, you are either, a part of the team, rich enough to pay for the studies that your tax money made possible, or you are f***ed.
It’s just notable that this Angell paper from Allenpress opens so nice an easy like that. How quickly will we return to the caste system?
Try and click on some of the studies cited within the paper.
James Sexton (11:35:21) :
I wish there would be more commentary about those subs. It seems to me, if they were near the north pole when they surfaced (and I know they were), then the melting/flooding argument of the alarmists is invalidated.
Some people do still worry about “melting/flooding” but as regards ice on the Arctic Ocean this is not an issue – now the issues mentioned involve albedo/heating/cooling and the like. If non-floating ice melts that is a different thing. So, let’s forget that part of your comment.
About the Arctic ice and its historic variation try this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
About subs surfacing at the North Pole:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08664.htm
and this one is a good source:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
This John Daly post has other interesting photos of subs at the NP on different dates, along with other images. An interesting read.
Watts:
John F. Hultquist:
TonyB:
Is Hubert Lamb our man?
Wouldn’t it be nice to sit down and talk data sets with the founder of CRU right now!
While keen to find evidence of global climate change on a human-life time scale, Hubert Lamb, to the end of his life in 1997, remained a sceptic of the new theory of AGW.
Was Lamb the creator of the first comprehensive global climate data sets?
An Independent Obituary to Lamb by Trevor Davies in 1997 says:
This suggests that his magnum opus Climate: Present, Past and Future. (1972&77) might be a good start in finding any hints of the original data and its earlier interpretation.
And someone might end up digging into the UEA HH Lamb Archive, which is said to contain “correspondence and MSS of reports and papers. The contents focus on North Sea storms; climate history including the ice age; long-range weather forecasts; rainfall studies; specific weather phenomena; climatic effect of volcanic dust; and CRU’s administration.”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/archives#H.H.Lamb
Here are some of Lambs papers listed in the AIP Climate Science bib:
1959 Hubert H. Lamb, “Our Changing Climate, Past and Present (Address to BAAS).” Weather, Oct., pp. 299-318 (reprinted in Lamb, Changing Climate, pp. 1-20).
1966 Hubert H. Lamb, The Changing Climate: Selected Papers. London.
1966 Hubert H. Lamb, “Britain’s Climate in the Past, Address to BAAS, 1964.” In The Changing Climate. Selected Papers pp. 170-95. London.
1969 Hubert H. Lamb, “Climatic Fluctuations.” In General Climatology, edited by H. Flohn, World Survey of Climatology, Vol. 2, pp. 173-247. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Who knows this stuff?
Has this history been written? I have only glanced at pro-AWG histories, and, as far as I recall, Lamb’s role in the history of global climatology is not emphasised.
For example, none of his papers are listed here:
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming
In my ignorance I had presumed that CRU was set up in the wake of AWG alarmism – not so! Rather, the generational shift seems to be remarkably distinct. And so there might just be another side to the history of climate research, where the first generational global climate change push (coming through with concern over evident cooling) are obscured behind the baby-boomer alarmist push coming through, not just in a warming period, but also in the wake of Population Bomb-type alarmism. Schneider, with his early cooling alarmism, might be the exception that proves this rule of a generational revolution – which at CRU is symbolised in Tom Wigley taking over from Lamb in 1978.
Wow.
This explains why I remember winters being so bitterly cold on a daily basis and deep snow drifts as a child living in Canada through those years.
Those decades were actually colder than usual !
My mom was right when she said that the 60’s (my childhood) was colder than her childhood in the 40’s… bitter gusting winds, more frequent blizzards, way more snow to shovel.
This also explains why there was the “coming ice age” claims in the 70’s as well. And now those same scientists are denying the drop in temps during that time period ?! Did they think historical records, science articles/studies, newspapers, magazines, documentaries, etc. would all disappear without a trace ?!
For shame.
””’Wren (12:23:18) : Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”. ””’
Wren,
Nice question you pose. The ‘why’ question is intriging. I would extend your question to;
Given that Dr Hansen is quite intelligent and resourceful and that there were many scenarios/options/methodologies he could use to adjust the temp records to suit his goals on the AGW agenda, why did he choose the one he did?
Based on my observations, he chose the method and sequence (over years) of adjustments that would be the most difficult for people like M & M to audit.
I think he quickly learned from the difficulties of Mann & Jones with M & M. I think Hansen also had better & more resources than Jones or Mann.
I think he adapted to the threats he perceived, whereas Jones did not adapt. Mostly Jones just resisted.
John
From the Angell 2003 paper:
‘In this paper, nine tropical radiosonde stations in this network are identified as anomalous based on unrepresentatively large standard-error-of-regression
values for 300–100-mb trends for the period 1958–2000.’
Can anyone explain that to a non-statistician? There is no further exposition of the method in the paper. The naughty ones are pretty much all in the tropics.
Whoops! Delete last sentence – it says that in the extract!
What is a radiosonde anyhow?
http://www.ua.nws.noaa.gov/factsheet.htm
The radiosonde is a small, expendable instrument package that is suspended 25 meters (about 80 feet) or more below a large balloon inflated with hydrogen or helium gas. As the radiosonde rises at about 300 meters/minute (about 1,000 feet/minute), sensors on the radiosonde measure profiles of pressure, temperature, and relative humidity. These sensors are linked to a battery powered, 300 milliwatt or less radio transmitter that sends the sensor measurements to a sensitive ground tracking antenna on a radio frequency typically ranging from 1675 to 1685 MHz. By tracking the position of the radiosonde in flight using GPS or a radio direction finding antenna, data on wind speed and direction aloft are also obtained (observations where winds aloft are also obtained from radiosondes are called “rawinsonde” observations). The radio signals received by the tracking antenna are converted to meteorological values and from these data significant levels are selected by a computer, put into a special code form, and then transmitted to data users. High vertical resolution flight data, among other data, are also archived and sent to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.
Wow. How much bad luck would it take for 9 specific tropical stations to receive the bad batch of radiosondes from 1958 onward? Incredible amount of bad fortune.
The current radiosonde tracking systems are 1950’s vintage and the data processing computer is a 1980’s IBM PC/XT. These systems are obsolete and are increasingly difficult to maintain. NWS has begun a program to replace the ground systems at all NWS stations with a new GPS radiosonde system. The program has four objectives:
They all use pretty much the same systems Bad luck about those nine in the tropics.
DirkH (10:00:11) :
Let the adjustment apologists now enter the arena.
Shame on you, sir. It is improper to call carrot eater (et al?) an apologist, as near as I can tell he/she/it can find no errors thus there is nothing to apologize for.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Slide71.jpg
There’s a post at climate skeptic that suggests another line of evidence to persue. Crops like long warm growing seasons. What were the wheat yeilds in Nebraska like back between 1965 -80? Were there any famines? Alberta Canada is a big ag state if it’s not too cold. I bet they kept records.
Don’t be misled by the fact of nuclear submarines surfacing at the North Pole. The sea ice commonly develops cracks between fractured ice. Wind and currents cause the cracks to open at intervals of time for distances of meters to hundreds of kilometers. You can see them in satellite photos. Its nothing to get too excited about regardless of the prevailing climate.
Never read all the comments, (too few hours in a day).
My take, seeing as everyone looks at the same graphs & seems to see different things.
My take is local, not global.
I am seeing nothing unusual! in the ’50s we had warm years; then came cool years, ending late ’70s early ’80s.
Not ‘quite’ old enough to remember the ’40s but people I do know say it was at least as warm.
No problem.
The graphs are wrong or my part of the Earth is somehow a totally separate entity.
We know sweet Fanny Adams!!
DaveE.
Re: Northern Exposure (Mar 18 17:38),
Your Mom was right – it was colder in the ’60s in N America. It just wasn’t cold everywhere. This isn’t a hidden fact. Go to the GISS site, and you’ll see this plot for the US. Note the big dip in the late ’60s? No-one’s saying you imagined it.
Frank Lansner (13:22:18) :
Frank,
I’m guessing you’ve already seen this, but here it is just in case you haven’t:
Version History
10 January 2006 RAOBCORE_T_1.0 homogeneity adjustments have been made publicly available. They cover the period 1958-2004. It is recommended to use version 1.1
13 February 2006 RAOBCORE_T_1.1 is the version used for preparing a mauscript submitted to J. Climate.
02 August 2006 RAOBCORE_T_1.2 is the version actually used for Haimberger, 2006 J. Climate.
02 August 2006 RAOBCORE_T_1.3 refers to the NOBGC experiment in Haimberger, 2007 J. Climate.
30 January 2007 RAOBCORE_T_1.4 is an update of Haimberger, 2007 J. Climate, reaching up to December 2006 and with more conservative ERA-40 bg modification.
http://www.univie.ac.at/theoret-met/research/raobcore/
I compared the difference between the highest and lowest points of the smoothed
line in Budyko 1969
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:17358/n11.Budyko1969.pdf
with the version used in IPCC 4AR
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure1-3-l.png
Budyko 1969 temp diff. 0.60 C (+/- 0.01 C)
IPCC (BUD 69) temp diff 0.68 C (+/- 0.01 C)
papertiger (18:30:40) :
There’s a post at climate skeptic that suggests another line of evidence to persue. Crops like long warm growing seasons. What were the wheat yeilds in Nebraska like back between 1965 -80? Alberta Canada is a big ag state if it’s not too cold. I bet they kept records.>>>
Well its a province not a state 🙂
I dont have the link handy but government of Saskatchewan (next one to right of Alberta) has a web site that lets you look at crop yield by municipality and crop type. I don’t think you can glean much from the numbers though. Crops are very sensitive to moisture, the specific variations change over time, as do agricultural practices ranging from herbicide and fertilizer use to crop rotation.
TonyB,
Here is what I wrote about Mandia: “Mandia is a vocal advocate of AGW, physics professor in some community college, graduated with a MSc. degree from Penn State University, the home of Michael Mann…”
He may be a nice guy with his kids but from the virulent stuff he posts in deepclimate, climateprogress, realclimate… to put it mildly it doesn’t shine through.
Billy liar,
over $400,000 of NASA grant and this guy is part of it. He may not get rich -and really why should he?- but it doesn’t change the fact it’s brainwashing at taxpayers expense.
Lookie here what I found in Angell’s anomalous tropical stations paper.
5. Comparison with other radiosonde and MSU trends
Santer et al. (2000b) showed in their Fig. 7 that the global low-stratospheric cooling trends obtained from the full 63-station network were about a factor of 2 greater than the trends obtained by others, including from reanalyses, for 1979–93. Figure 8 compares the trends obtained from the 54-station network (trends with confidence intervals, and connected by solid lines) with other radiosonde and MSU trends for a slightly longer period. Based on a painstaking analysis of temperature data from 87 globally distributed radiosonde stations, the solid triangles show the tropical, hemispheric, and global temperature trends for 1959–97 and 1979–97 obtained by Lanzante et al. (2003) through the use of several procedures, some subjective, for identifying discontinuities in the individual radiosonde temperature records and adjusting for them. The agreement between the two datasets is generally good, the triangles falling within the 54-station confidence intervals except in the 100–50-mb layer of the Southern Hemisphere for both periods, and the 300–100-mb layer of the Southern Hemisphere and globe for the longer period (Lanzante et al. finding less cooling in all cases). This would be expected due to the distribution of stations in the 54-station network, in which both south temperate and south polar zones are represented by 6 stations (see Fig. 2 ). This gives too much weight to the south polar zone with its large stratospheric cooling associated with the Antarctic ozone hole. Note that for the 1958–2000 period there is usually worse agreement between the trends of Lanzante et al. and those for the full 63-station network (small circles in Fig. 8 ), than between Lanzante et al. and the 54-station network, particularly in the case of the 300–100-mb layer. This is evidence that exclusion of the anomalous stations indeed results in more representative estimates of the temperature trend.
Didn’t the warmers just spend a year and a half trying to erase global cooling/prove global warming over Antarctica? In this paper they claim a cool bias because of global warming over Antarctica that they also claim never existed.
Inconsistent testimony gives me pause.
Gareth (13:02:52) :
Wren said: “Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”
To remove the earlier cooling that does not correlate with the measured carbon dioxide trend, perhaps.
======
Woops! My Mistake. According to those graphs, he made the 196O’s cooler in 1987 than he had them in 1980. He added some cooling there instead of removing it.
18 March: Reuters Alert: ‘Pervasive, wide-ranging’ climate impacts in US, White House task force finds
by Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects on “nearly every aspect of our society,” a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday. ..
Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.
The group is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
It is made up of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, departments and offices, including the Department of Commerce, the National Intelligence Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon. That’s diverse – and it’s definitive. …
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/63671/2010/02/18-112703-1.htm
Oerlemans(2005), a glacier study featured in IPCC reports:
http://sub0.cjb.net/rec/oerlemans_2005.png
Some of the curves show clear decline after mid 1900’s. The only proper hockeystick is SH, but data for the whole southern hemisphere consist of just 12 (of 169) glaciers. Nevertheless this has been referred as “confirming the hockeystick”…
NH in 2 parts, http://sub0.cjb.net/rec/oerlemans_2005_nh.png
Smith et al. (2006), speleothems from three sites around the NH, http://sub0.cjb.net/rec/smith_2006.png show decline after 1960’s.
Das et al. (2009), http://sub0.cjb.net/rec/das_2009.png , Greenland. Only one measurement site without divergence problem!
Here’s another striking bit of luck in the Angell paper. Way down in the conclusions
Comparison with MSU and other radiosonde analyses shows that, after the exclusions
1. All datasets agree that in the Tropics the troposphere warmed more than the surface during 1958–2000, but during 1979–2000 the surface warmed more than the troposphere except in the dataset of Lanzante et al.
WOW
A fundamental change in the physical properties of the atmosphere associated with the year 1979 !
It’s nothing short of a miracle. Haleluja.
What could have brought on a miracle in 1979. – Let see
The year Reagan ran for President. Might have seemed like a miracle for the Iranian hostages but…
The year Nasa started recording temp data with satellite? – Could that be the miracle that change the air as we know it?
18
03
2010
John Whitman (17:40:38) :
””’Wren (12:23:18) : Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?”. ””’
Wren,
Nice question you pose. The ‘why’ question is intriging. I would extend your question to;
Given that Dr Hansen is quite intelligent and resourceful and that there were many scenarios/options/methodologies he could use to adjust the temp records to suit his goals on the AGW agenda, why did he choose the one he did?
Based on my observations, he chose the method and sequence (over years) of adjustments that would be the most difficult for people like M & M to audit.
I think he quickly learned from the difficulties of Mann & Jones with M & M. I think Hansen also had better & more resources than Jones or Mann.
I think he adapted to the threats he perceived, whereas Jones did not adapt. Mostly Jones just resisted.
John
——
And such vision! Hansen knew what to do a long time ago(1987). No wonder the meteorological association gave him an award.
bemused (16:32:44) :
1.The Budyko(1976) temperature data which appears to have been used in the National Geographic article was for the *northern hemisphere* only. The Hansen graphs you then compare them with are *global*. You are not comparing like with like.
If you wanted to do a fair comparison you could look at the GISS Northern Hemisphere data here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Here you will see that (surprise, surprise) the 70s come out cooler than the 1955-65 period. No conspiracy.
2.The RAOB core data that you plotted showing the data from the late-50s onwards is for the *tropics only* -again you are not comparing like with like. I’m not quite sure what your point was with that.
3.You comparison, supposedly showing changes to the data after the fact is far from convincing. Obviously, new studies using different selections of station data and different analysis techniques will give different numbers. The position of your blue line is very sensitive to the short, sharp dip around 1965. You can pick points from the series which change both ways.
For example, in your 3 Hansen plots figure, look at the peak around 1940 and compare this with the red line.
Cooling between 1940 peak and 1955-1965:
1980 paper = -0.10C
1987 paper = -0.15C
2007 paper = -0.15C
Why don’t you accuse Hansen of introducing artificial cooling into the global temperature time series?
4.”If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, this rewrites the entire claim of unprecedented recent warming.”
Which data that you’ve shown has allowed you to conclude that 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990s? The “National Geographic” northern hemisphere data only go up to 1975. The RAOB data are for the tropics only and incidently match very closely to tropics data in the GISS data (linked in (1) above). The global GISS data show the 1990s to be considerably warmer than 1958.
5.As you suddenly have such huge faith in the observational records provided by satellites and RAOBCORE (“both accurate, reliable tools” apparently), I would like to point out that both of these (in your figure) independently confirm a global warming trend of approx 0.2K/decade (1979-2008).
======
Yeah, but …..
A bunch of burned-out old men who do nothing but massage ancient data. What a pathetic image. It requires a new word – paqaqaq. It’s paqaqaq.
Jimmy Carter turned off the Christmas Tree lights at the White House.
Re: papertiger (Mar 18 19:25),
In this paper they claim a cool bias because of global warming over Antarctica that they also claim never existed.
You’re not reading carefully, which makes it easy to find inconsistency. He’s talking about stratospheric cooling.
Bruce of Newcastle (15:06:08) :
Climate Kate (13:14:21) :
“Unfortunatelly at moment (2010) the UAH data show a much bigger temperature increase than the GISS data”
We’re in a very big el Nino, like the 1998 event. Similar spike in troposphere temperature proxy to 1998. I think we’re all waiting with interest to see what will happen after the el Nino dissipates.
=====
Maybe the same thing that happened after the last El Nino(1998). The the 2010-2009 decade will be warmer globally than the decade before it.
Steve Goddard (10:49:13) :
Most NCDC statewide temperature records show this decline. Here is one from Alabama.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I guess if you wanted to show global warming in your data set you’d want to drop that station from it.
steven mosher (11:12:59) :
Maybe Hansen kept his old data set. Asking him might be an interesting experience.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Doing so could make you another person of whom he says their name must not be mentioned.
Wren (12:23:18) :
Why is Hansen trying to make it look like the warming after 1970 wasn’t as great as it actually was?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
I gotta hand it to you Wren, you’re really on top of this game. You don’t pass a chance up.
But you’ve got such a big problem. There are people looking past you.
Theo Goodwin (20:06:17) :
A bunch of burned-out old men who do nothing but massage ancient data. What a pathetic image. It requires a new word – paqaqaq. It’s paqaqaq.
====
I googled “paqaqaq,” and found nothing. I’ll bite. What’s it mean?
Any real climatologist only uses anomaly.
/sarcoff/
Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:16:34) :
Steve Goddard (10:49:13) :
Most NCDC statewide temperature records show this decline. Here is one from Alabama.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
I guess if you wanted to show global warming in your data set you’d want to drop that station from it.
——-
Yeah, I bet that would do it, given that the entire U.S. represents only about 1.5 % of the globe’s surface.
Ripper (14:54:53) : Most interesting. The cru91 for Red Bluff, CA, matches very well with the historic records from AMS. It also includes the data back to 1872, which I presume Jones lost. Too bad, 1875 bears a closer look. It also confirms zero warming for Red Bluff 1872-1980.
I’ll have to check other stations to see how much of the cru91 is for real.
Wren (20:16:03) :
Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.
But you’ll say that’s not a long enough time period to measure cooling. But it is if you’re looking at the last decade, which you are doing. Also, of course, if it was warming over the last decade that would be proof of global warming, I know, just like everything else is proof of global warming.
BTW, the earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period. It was warmer on earth then than it is now.
El Ninos and La Ninas come and go. But the earth continues to cool.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:36:16) :
Wren (20:16:03) :
Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.
But you’ll say that’s not a long enough time period to measure cooling. But it is if you’re looking at the last decade, which you are doing. Also, of course, if it was warming over the last decade that would be proof of global warming, I know, just like everything else is proof of global warming.
BTW, the earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period. It was warmer on earth then than it is now.
El Ninos and La Ninas come and go. But the earth continues to cool.
=====
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.
NIck Stokes:
It just wasn’t cold everywhere.
Bemused:
was for the *northern hemisphere* only
Because, of course, everything that goes against global warming is merely a local phenomenon.
But apparently anything showing warming can used to extrapolate globally. Bristlecones, for example. When refuters put forward the case that such studies are ridiculously local, which is rather obviously true, we are said to be “denying” the facts.
The data under discussion shows cooling during the period in question in the NH and the tropics. I am unaware that the SH was baking hot during the period, although I recall my childhood was a relatively warm period (warmer than today, actually, but we don’t want to go there!).
Stephan (15:22:27) :
“As an avid denier of AGW I proudly announce that yes 2010 seems to be one of the warmest years of satellite records for the first 3 months anyway (similar to 2005)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
and it means absolutely nothIng in climatic terms. If it was the coldest would say same. LOL All assuming their is no satellite drift of course but i trust AMSU 100%”
The correct link: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
(then choose channel 5 (TMT) and check all years)
2010 is not at all similar to 2005, but high above all years from 1999 to 2009. March 2010 is even high above March 1998, which was the warmest until now. Because the advanced microwave sensor unit was installed later in 1998, you can´t see the 1998 graph before August. But the 20-year-record curve is for 1979-1998 and shows the record from 1998, which is far below 2010 for every day of march until now. March 2010 will probably end around 0,7 °C above 1979-98 (version 5.3, lower troposphere, not identical with the channel 5 value, but close to it). By calculation with version 5.2, perhaps the absolute month record from february and april 1998 (+0.76) would be broken.
“Wren (21:03:05) :
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.”
And Mann, Jones et al just turned their monitors the other way to clearly show the hockey stick.
This amateurishness is another indication that we dissenters are not a movement with professional funding and guidance.
I forgot to thank the person who posted this link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
It includes a very good explanation of “statistical significance” and how it is misinterpreted.
Patrick Davis (21:13:47) :
“Wren (21:03:05) :
You are right. After turning my monitor on its side, I can clearly see the decline.”
And Mann, Jones et al just turned their monitors the other way to clearly show the hockey stick.
====
The “Hockey Stick” blade is solid, and the shank is solid unless you try to extend it too far and get into an area of uncertainty.
Frank Lansner or someone else please clarify…
I am still unclear on the source of the Nat Geographic graph.
Lansner (or Nova?) give the source as Angell&Korshover (1977) and Budyko (1969).
Firstly…
Are these sources given by Matthews in the Nat Geo article?
Now, as far as I can see, only the Budyko article has a graph back to 1881 as per the Nat Geo article – and it looks very similar. Budyko says this is “the secular variation of annual temp in the NH that was calulated from the maps of the temp anomalies for each month from the period of 1881 to 1960 which were compiled at the Main Geophysical Observatory…”
I gather that he is just using this graph as an establish authority. So the second question is:
Do you know what Budyko means when he gives his source as the Main Geophysical Observatory?
And isnt this the source we should be looking for?
Wren (21:03:05) :
So you say there has been no cooling in the last 10 years?
Wren (21:03:05) :
Ohh, I get it, you’re looking at the Mann Hockey Stick.
That explains it.
Wren (20:30:45) :
If I were a fish in the sea, I’d be concerned about the global ocean temp.
But I live on land (hope you do, too.
Wren (21:46:33) :
It’s solid something.
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.
page 21 of the NAS report:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
Egads! It’s a plot. Everyone has manipulated the data and thankfully the two courageous people, a couple of lowly bloggers with no climate qualifications between them, have figured it all out before we get taken over by a world government led by NASA, which is the front for aliens from space, who have infiltrated all the temperature records of every nation in the world, and all the people who’ve been recording data for the past 100 years.
Thank goodness for forty-four year-old copies of National Geographic, with an article that ends with a quote:
“The question of climate change is no longer just curiousity. We simply cannot afford to arrive unprepared at the doorstep of climatic catastrophe.”
(I bet W LaWrence Gates of Oregon State University was an alien in disguise plotting a world government way back then.)
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG
bemused (16:32:44) :
1.The Budyko(1976) temperature data which appears to have been used in the National Geographic article was for the *northern hemisphere* only. The Hansen graphs you then compare them with are *global*. You are not comparing like with like.
If you wanted to do a fair comparison you could look at the GISS Northern Hemisphere data here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
Here you will see that (surprise, surprise) the 70s come out cooler than the 1955-65 period. No conspiracy.
=====
Indeed! That’s what it shows, and it conflicts with the article.
The article says ” By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs which were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and then 2007 further reduced the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost.”
So it looks like the article is wrong. Is there an explanation?
“Wren (21:46:33) :
The “Hockey Stick” blade is solid, and the shank is solid unless you try to extend it too far and get into an area of uncertainty.”
[snip ~ too nasty ~ ctm]
Amino Acids in Meteorites (22:05:55) :
Wren (21:46:33) :
It’s solid something.
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.
page 21 of the NAS report:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
====
As has been pointed out to you more than once, the same report says this on page 3.
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.”
Probably you are focusing too much on some little bitty parts of the Hockey Stick rather than its overall appearance. Obsession with small detail can get in the way of seeing the big picture.
””’By Wren on March 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm: And such vision! Hansen knew what to do a long time ago(1987). No wonder the meteorological association gave him an award.””’
Wren,
Assuming on my part that we are having a sincere exchange then I will respond sincerely.
Yes, I agree with you that Hansen had far vision & was was recognized for it by various orgs.. Give Hansen credit for his due diligence. He did have more than 20 yrs foresight on the AGW agenda. More than most.
If your exchange is not sincere then kindly let me know. I would appreciate it.
John
Could some of the difference in the charts be because of the number of stations that were used in the “average”?
IIRC, the number of stations has decreased, so they might be re-running the charts using the the-current listing of stations.
Using fewer stations would have a difference in the averages, right?
Amino Acids in Meteorites (22:01:02) :
Wren (21:03:05) :
So you say there has been no cooling in the last 10 years?
======
Are you kidding? You can find some year-to-year cooling in the last 10 years and lots of other 10 year periods. It’s just like my assets — lots of declines, but a long-term rise.
Yes Wren, there IS an explanation.
How many stations in the southern hemisphere are actually used to create the GISS temp series?? Of course, according to them, they can add or drop stations and it makes no difference to their homogenised, adjusted, anomalised, and gridded product!!! But then, why does it keep changing??
Think of the WHO Don’t get fooled again!!
John Whitman (22:39:38) :
””’By Wren on March 18, 2010 at 7:56 pm: And such vision! Hansen knew what to do a long time ago(1987). No wonder the meteorological association gave him an award.””’
Wren,
Assuming on my part that we are having a sincere exchange then I will respond sincerely.
Yes, I agree with you that Hansen had far vision & was was recognized for it by various orgs.. Give Hansen credit for his due diligence. He did have more than 20 yrs foresight on the AGW agenda. More than most.
If your exchange is not sincere then kindly let me know. I would appreciate it.
John
=====
Please don’t interpret my sarcasm and feeble attempts at humor as a lack of sincerity. I think Hansen is an honest man who is maligned by people who don’t like his work.
“Amino Acids in Meteorites (22:01:02) :
Wren (21:03:05) :
So you say there has been no cooling in the last 10 years?
You can see the trends (satellite and met. stations + sst) at climate4you:
http://www.climate4you.com/
Choose “global temperature” on the left, then “global temperature trends”.
What you see: 10-years trend is slightly positive, no matter if you take UAH, RSS (satellite) or NCDC, CRU, GISS (met. stations + sea surface temperatures). Nevertheless a 10-years trend doesn’t say much, because short time fluctuations of global temperature directed by el nino / la nina and vulcanos are much bigger than any trend (if you don’t have a warming or cooling trend of 10 degrees per century ;-)).
Vulcanos didn’t have a big impact during the last 10 years, so what you see is the variation by el nino/la nina. The 5-year negative trend for UAH will decrease quickly with the high values that have to be expected for the rest of the year because of the el nino. Even if this should change to a strong la nina in the second half of 2010 (like 1998 after the strong el nino 1997/1998, see here: http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm), this will not have very much influence on the 2010 temperature. We would see the decline in 2011 (like 1999).
Sou (22:07:44) :
M: Ah. I’d like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven’t, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. [Watson’s] free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. [Eschenbach]; room 12.
(h/t Monty Python, The Argument Clinic Sketch)
kuhnkat (22:49:49) :
Yes Wren, there IS an explanation.
How many stations in the southern hemisphere are actually used to create the GISS temp series?? Of course, according to them, they can add or drop stations and it makes no difference to their homogenised, adjusted, anomalised, and gridded product!!! But then, why does it keep changing??
Think of the WHO Don’t get fooled again!!
====
What does that have to do with this article?
it is truly bizarre,
but evidence is mounting, that the warmest period in recent history has been around 1940.
Current temperature readings are inflated by a whopping 0.65 deg against those from around 1940.
– Since 1979 temperature readings have been too high by about 0.1 deg.
(supported by comparison with satellite data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/trend:1979/plot/uah/trend )
– Including the atmospheric physics, expecting a higher trend in the satellite measured lower troposphere, there is an additional 0.1 deg overestimation on ground data.
– Between 1940-1979, Hadcrut reports only a fall in temperature of 0.04 deg.
In stark contrast, ample historical evidence a much higher reduction of about 0.5 deg.
(See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1979 )
In sum, Hadcrut inflated temperatures artificially by about 0.65 deg since 1940.
Subtracting 0.65 deg from current temperatures would leave the period around 1940 by far the warmest in recent history.
(Do this in: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl )
rbateman (22:03:45) :
Wren (20:30:45) :
If I were a fish in the sea, I’d be concerned about the global ocean temp.
But I live on land (hope you do, too.)
—-
If you were a fish, you should be more concerned about swimming too close to shore and getting over-heated from UHI’s.
Sou (22:07:44) :
Egads! It’s a plot. Everyone has manipulated the data and thankfully the two courageous people, a couple of lowly bloggers with no climate qualifications between them, have figured it all out before we get taken over by a world government led by NASA, which is the front for aliens from space>>
Sou, I can assure you that NASA has not been taken over by aliens, nor is there an alien conspiracy. Trust me, I would know. I’m in charge of all the alien plots on earth and that’s not one of them.
If you want to point the finger, I suggest the propensity for “tricks” and “hiding” things might suggest magicians. Remember that these are modern magicians, they don’t wear those funny robes and pointy hats anymore. They dress just like you are one of us aliens. To spot them, all you need to do is look for someone playing tricks with data, calling it science, and defending it by insisting that mere mortals and dumb aliens like me cant understand it because we don’t work for NASA.
NASA… those were the guys who decided the engineers that designed the O rings in the shuttle didn’t know enough to claim a cold weather launch would end i disaster? That NASA? The ones who know more about the parts of the shuttle than the people who designed it? The NASA that had to send eye glasses out to correct the vision of their telescope they put into orbit permanently out of focus? That NASA?
Yes, they’ve been infiltrated by the magicians. Us aliens would rather not be associated.
”””Wren (22:53:15) : John, please don’t interpret my sarcasm and feeble attempts at humor as a lack of sincerity. I think Hansen is an honest man who is maligned by people who don’t like his work.”””’
Wren,
I appreciate your reply, thanks. So we can agree to disagree on Dr Hansen.
My evaluation of Hansen is he compromised his scientific profession by allowing his support of a predetermined AGW agenda to influence his scientific products.
As to what his motivation for doing so was, I do not know or care. It is possible that he was sincerely motivated by a ‘do good/altruistic’ cause to compromise his profession. I find this explanation not credible.
But to me, it does not matter why [although I am intrigued by the ‘why’]. I evaluate that he compromised the science in his voluntary profession of science. Integrity lost.
John
John Whitman (23:46:46) :
”””Wren (22:53:15) : John, please don’t interpret my sarcasm and feeble attempts at humor as a lack of sincerity. I think Hansen is an honest man who is maligned by people who don’t like his work.”””’
Wren,
I appreciate your reply, thanks. So we can agree to disagree on Dr Hansen.
My evaluation of Hansen is he compromised his scientific profession by allowing his support of a predetermined AGW agenda to influence his scientific products.
As to what his motivation for doing so was, I do not know or care. It is possible that he was sincerely motivated by a ‘do good/altruistic’ cause to compromise his profession. I find this explanation not credible.
But to me, it does not matter why [although I am intrigued by the ‘why’]. I evaluate that he compromised the science in his voluntary profession of science. Integrity lost.
John
———
Thank you, John. I’m too sleepy to comment anymore.
I wish you and other posters a happy tomorrow.
“Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.”
What do you suppose the trend looks like if you take out ENSO altogether, instead of just the last year or so?
And yes, 10 years is too short to make a climate trend. I noticed in my wanderings that Lubos Motl agrees that even 15 years is too short.
Antonio San
We will beg to differ about Scott, but much more to the point is the access to money that AGW proponents can tap into for indoctrintion of our school children.
Such propaganda, aimed at all sectors of the community, is very wide spread in the UK and comes ultimately from signing up to the Kyoto protocol, whereby all signatories are obliged to folow the UN ‘Sage 21’ programme.
This is quite separate to the billions being spent on climate research to try to prove AGW exists in the first place. The quote I appended to my original post sums up the dilemma we face as objectivity gradually fades as the new generation are indoctrinated with the ‘new truth’ and the older generation are not around to correct it.
The thing we all ought to be bending our efforts to is how to get hold of some of this funding so a coherent opposing view can be put, backed up by properly researched documents, which in turn is put in front of opinion formers and the next generation.
Unfortunately my cheques from BIg Oil seem to have inexplicably gone missing so any suggestions from anyone as to how to tap into the stream of tax payers money to put our case would be welcome.
tonyb
You Know Too Much — you can expect a visit from the MIB.
@ davidmhoffer (23:41:07) :
XD You are killing me. Maybe you would like some shares in my new company, Copperfield Mercury?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt
“It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.”
Found this reference to nuclear subs surfacing in the arctic in the 60’s and 70’s http://testing.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/436/588/1/4/
@ nick stokes (14:46:01)
Correct. Isn’t it standard practice in Climate Science to substitute 4 or 5 quite different sets of proxy data and then hide the discrepancies?
Dave F (04:21:13) :
@ davidmhoffer (23:41:07) :
XD You are killing me. Maybe you would like some shares in my new company, Copperfield Mercury>>
LOL. Took me a while to puzzle through that one. Unfortunately there was a sip of coffee involved when it hit. I have to check the ACC (Alien Code of Conduct) to see if an alien can invest in a magician centric venture.
I’d like to thank Wren and Nick for keeping this discussion honest. I don’t have enough background in climate or statistics to interpret much of the data myself, so I’m rather forced to take the claims stated here without indepth analysis. Wren and Nick are forcing that analysis with their comments.
It’s fascinating to see science being done properly here, as opposing views are argued out and various ‘proofs’ offered for examination.
Too bad that the CRU wasn’t willing to do the same with their data.
Regretably Wren and Nick, I just see too many flaws in the methodology and too much corrupted data to place much faith in Jones, Hansen, and Mann et al.
Nixk – with your argument that the old data isn’t accurate, I think you’re falling into the old mistake of thinking that humans have gotten smarter since the days when we built the pyramids. We haven’t. We have different tools, but they’re not necessarily more accurate – just easier to use. In any case, you can’t have it both ways. If the old data is too inaccurate or scanty to show that the claimed warming trend is false, it’s also too inaccurate or scanty to show that AGW is true. Thus the logical position to take is that we don’t know.
Wren, I think that you’ve gotten into the position of fighting for every inch of ground or every 10th of a degree… and you’ve lost track of the larger picture. At this point, you do your position no good with comments such as “The “Hockey Stick” blade is solid, and the shank is solid unless you try to extend it too far and get into an area of uncertainty.”
This weakens the valid questions you raise.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts, gentlemen. Please continue the discussion and perhaps you can convince me of AGW
Wren (23:13:00) :
kuhnkat (22:49:49) :Yes Wren, there IS an explanation.
How many stations in the southern hemisphere are actually used to create the GISS temp series?? Of course, according to them, they can add or drop stations and it makes no difference to their homogenised, adjusted, anomalised, and gridded product!!! But then, why does it keep changing??
Think of the WHO Don’t get fooled again!!
====
What does that have to do with this article?
The past just isn’t what it used to be according to Hansen, here’s NH GISS to scale on the NG temp plot. The past is flattened by 50% and skewed down, the present is some recipe that doesn’t seem to match the physical world.
http://i44.tinypic.com/30cskrp.jpg
The 0,43C decline shown in Matthews 1976 National Geographic is an artefact of the splicing of the two mentioned dataset. Frank Lansner had been set straight about the two spliced datasets yielding a spuriously large decline by Dr. Bo Møllesøe Vinther before he wrote his post quoted here.
Here:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/hide-the-decline-hvad-er-det-reelt-man-daekker-over-d12-e1473-s20.php#post_20084
and here:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/hide-the-decline-hvad-er-det-reelt-man-daekker-over-d12-e1473-s40.php#post_20192
Below, I have translated the most important parts of Dr. Vinther´s three posts for non-Danish readers:
“The curve from National Geographic 76 (NGT76) has been spliced from to different NH temperature series, Budyko (1969) and Angell and Korshover (1977).
These two have applied different types of observations. Budyko (1969) page 1 reads that: “Fig. 1 represents the secular variation of annual temperature in the northern hemisphere that was calculated from maps of temperature anomalies for each month for the period from 1881 to 1960 which were compiled at the Main Geophysical Observatory. “,
However, in Angell and Korshover (1977) in can be seen from their figure 1 and table 1 that 37 radiosonde stations have been applied in their study of the NH temperatures.
The way these two datasets have been put together in NGT76 has apparently never been published.
Based on these facts, I consider NGT76 to be unfit for analyses of the temperatures in the timeframe 1940-75. This is because any trend calculated over this period will be affected by how these two series are splied together in 1959 – and to what degree the 37 radiosonde stations measure the same as the stations upon which the anomaly charts used in Bydyko (1969) are based.
As an example of how wrong one can be when splicing such two datasets based upon different observations I have attached the below figure with HadCRUT3 put together with radiosonde observations but chosen two different years for the splicing to take place. If spliced together in 1962, you get a declining trend for the years 1940-76 of about -0,3C. If you on the other hand splice them together in 1962, the trend 1940-76 becomes slightly POSITIVE.
If you want to assess the trend 1940-75 by a Russian dataset, I would recommend the data from State Hydrological Institute i St. Petersbourg, where M.I. Budyko headed the cimate department for many years. The below link is updated until 1993 and has been documented in numerous publications.
Links:
Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics 1977 (figur 2.5 mm.):
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12024&page=55
Budyko 1969:
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:17358/n11.Budyko1969.pdf
Angell and Korshover 1977:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0493(1977)105%3C0375%3AEOTGCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Russian NH temperature data 1881-1993:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_VINNIKOV_GROISMAN_LUGINA.html
I do not agree that anyone has been trying to hide the decline 1940-70. To be sure, uncertainties about the size do exist, but this is not hidden at all and can be readily seen by comparing e.g. GISS, HadCRUT3 and the above mentioned updated Russian NH data:
The decline in HadCRUT3 NH temperature is 0.19C (the difference between average temp. 1936-45 and 1967-76).
The decline in GISS NH temperatur er 0.24C (the difference between average temp. 1937-46 and 1967-76).
The decline in the Russian NH temperature data is 0.28C (the difference between average temp. 1935-44 and 1963-72).
(This is calculated for the warmest decade of the 1930ies/1940ies and the coldest decade of the 1960ies/1970ies for each set of data)”.
P.S. Frank, if you want the radiosonde data from the entire globe, then you can find them here – look at HadAt2:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
As you see, a bit larger uncertainty before 1979 as compared to UAH/RSS, but once again, no hidden decline – and surely, the radiosondes show a warming of more than 0,6C in comparison to 1958.
How on earth do you see any indication that present day temperatures should be similar to todays in any of these data? Do you honestly believe what you write yourself?
And lest I forget: What you purport to show with the submarine pictures is plainly beyond me.
Why is it that the past is always up and down; and upand down again; but the future for some reason is always up, or always down.
Anyone else notice that Mathews disconnect at 1976, between past and future.
Crazy. I predict up and down from here on out for the forseeable future.
“Patrick Davis (22:30:36) :
[snip ~ too nasty ~ ctm]”
Apologies however, I thought Wren might have had tough enough skin to wear it.
Mind you Lokki (07:20:19) : says it in a much nicer way.
CBH:
1) “I do not agree that anyone has been trying to hide the decline 1940-70. ”
Explain this:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Temperature%20decline%20cold%20war/23Hansen19812007.jpg
2) The stitch:
Again, read my original article where I explain all my viewpoints about the stitching – also with regard to Bo Vinthers thoughts – and then com back and discuss the subject:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-temperature-decline-1940-78-the-cold-data-war-170.php
CBH, 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 wrong by the Japanese Meteorological institute?
This claim appears without support.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-temperature-decline-1940-78-the-cold-data-war-170.php
Frank Lansner,
By the way. Excellent post!
It has been a wonderful and insightful dialog here.
And of course thank Anthony and the mod team for the excellent venue here at WUWT.
John
barry (01:05:38) :
“Kinda sucks for you Wren that after taking out El Nino for 2009/2010 cooling is actually happening in the past decade.”
What do you suppose the trend looks like if you take out ENSO altogether, instead of just the last year or so?
And yes, 10 years is too short to make a climate trend. I noticed in my wanderings that Lubos Motl agrees that even 15 years is too short.
======
You want to take out the warming effect of El Nino but leave in the cooling effect of La Nina? That might be interpreted as reverse sexism.
Lokki (07:20:19) :
I’d like to thank Wren and Nick for keeping this discussion honest. I don’t have enough background in climate or statistics to interpret much of the data myself, so I’m rather forced to take the claims stated here without indepth analysis. Wren and Nick are forcing that analysis with their comments.
It’s fascinating to see science being done properly here, as opposing views are argued out and various ‘proofs’ offered for examination.
Too bad that the CRU wasn’t willing to do the same with their data.
Regretably Wren and Nick, I just see too many flaws in the methodology and too much corrupted data to place much faith in Jones, Hansen, and Mann et al.
Nixk – with your argument that the old data isn’t accurate, I think you’re falling into the old mistake of thinking that humans have gotten smarter since the days when we built the pyramids. We haven’t. We have different tools, but they’re not necessarily more accurate – just easier to use. In any case, you can’t have it both ways. If the old data is too inaccurate or scanty to show that the claimed warming trend is false, it’s also too inaccurate or scanty to show that AGW is true. Thus the logical position to take is that we don’t know.
Wren, I think that you’ve gotten into the position of fighting for every inch of ground or every 10th of a degree… and you’ve lost track of the larger picture. At this point, you do your position no good with comments such as “The “Hockey Stick” blade is solid, and the shank is solid unless you try to extend it too far and get into an area of uncertainty.”
This weakens the valid questions you raise.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts, gentlemen. Please continue the discussion and perhaps you can convince me of AGW
==============
Lokki, thank you for the kind words, but I’m not much of a convincer. My wife can tell you that.
Patrick Davis (20:58:39) :
[snip ~ too nasty ~ ctm]”
Apologies however, I thought Wren might have had tough enough skin to wear it.
Wrens are tough little birds. I think the one that hangs out here can shrug off whatever gets flung at him.
Which does *not* mean that I approve of throwing *nasty* things at him.
Thankyou SO much, John Whitman :-)))
K.R. Frank Lansner
Frank Lansner (11:46:53) :
Frank, did any of those Raobcore links have the NH data you wanted?