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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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/
@ur momisugly 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?