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.
Dave F (04:21:13) :
@ur momisugly 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?