GISTEMP Movie Matinées

By Steve Goddard

From reading the press and some blogs, one would think that the hot week in early July on the middle Atlantic seaboard was a rare or unprecedented event. Some believe that the weather used to be perfect before the invention of the soccer mom.

One of my favorite stories growing up was told by my New York relatives. The reason why movie matinées became very popular during the 1930s was because movie theatres were the only place that was air conditioned. People would go to the theatre just to get out of the oppressive heat. I tend to trust historical accounts from reliable sources, but for those who want data – keep reading.

Prior to being corrupted adjusted in the year 2000, this is what the GISS US temperature graph looked like.

The 1930s was by far the hottest decade. After being “adjusted” in the year 2000, it magically changed shape. The 1990s became much warmer. 1998 added almost half a degree – ex post facto.

The video below shows (in reverse) how the graph was rotated in the year 2000. Older temperatures became colder, and newer temperatures became warmer.

Rewriting history is not a good approach to science. It was very hot during the 1930s, as anyone who lived through it can tell you. Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.

163 thoughts on “GISTEMP Movie Matinées

  1. Please can anyone tell me why I have just read an article in the Telegraph in the UK stating that 2010 is on course to be the warmist year on record?

    It was the coldest start to the year in the Northern hemisphere for 30 years and here in the UK we had one of the coldest month of May.

    This article seems to strengthen the argument that data is now so corrupted that it almost pointless using it. Surely the information is somewhere and the science can get back to some sane research.

  2. From the post: “People would go to the theatre just to get out of the oppressive heat.”

    People still do, me included. I’m green (more likely, just cheap): I turn the temp up on my air conditioner and go to the movies or hit the malls just so I’m staying cool on someone else’s dime.

    You’ll see even more of that as energy costs go up.

  3. Anyway to adjust and change the data to make it hotter today is to keep the funding in place for researchers so government policies can go through with their terrible future plans.
    Keep up the good work Steve!

  4. So then, according to GISS, the end result of Global Warming is that we all get to meet Kevin Bacon?

  5. Your statement that the adjustment was magical or somehow designed to give a certain result is without basis. If you think the adjustments where wrong you need to present your analysis of the methods used. You do not give a source for the second graph. I think it is from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    The main difference is that the second graph covers a longer period of time. As for the adjustments they are expanded there as well:
    “What’s New

    Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.

    Nov. 14, 2009: USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.

    Sep. 11, 2009: NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on Sept. 9 of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning Sept. 11 the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set. ”

    If you disagree, explain why. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it is magic. And just because you won’t provide references does not mean you will not be exposed.

    BTW: The first image in your post is from here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

  6. Mike

    As states in the article, 1998 increased by about half a degree after the adjustment. Look closer at the graph, and in particular watch the video again. There is no question that older temperatures became cooler and newer temperatures became warmer.

  7. My grandfather, who lived in Wisconsin, used to tell me that 1936 was the hottest year he ever saw – a whole stretch of days over 100 degrees, and this in central Wisconsin! He always called it “the year all the Flies died!” on account of the heat.

  8. Mike

    Do you think it is a coincidence that Hansen has devoted his life’s work towards proving global warming, and that the adjustments always move towards support of that idea?

  9. Silly me. I did not submit my thoughts to proper authorities for approval before my previous comment.

    I now see the error of my ways: the denialist video shows the process in reverse, in order to nullify the effects of Global Warming.

    The six degrees actually separates. So I have been granted by the authorites to realize that indeed, it is due to Global Warming that all of us do not know Kevin Bacon firsthand.

    Yet another calamity! Who will save?

  10. So the temperatures were adjusted in 2000? Crikey, that’s ten years ago! Surely it’s time to adjust them again, isn’t it? Then we’ll have the proof that we’re burning up.

  11. As I point out in my recent Examiner.com article:

    The “science” underlying greenhouse warming alarmism increasingly is being exposed as pure fantasy — a house of cards built on manipulated climate models supporting pre-ordained conclusions based on cherry-picked land-based temperature data that has been homogenized, interpolated and adjusted to produce, without fail, a politically correct increase in planetary warming.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-
    Examiner~y2010m7d22-Global-warming-alarmists-in-full-retreat-lash-out-at-skeptics

  12. RE: “Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.”

    That ‘someday’ will probably require a long time for a real change of attitude there. Perhaps that will happen after the real consequences of this folly become generally known. I still recall seeing an excited buzz of ‘right-on’ enthusiasm when the academy award for Vice President Gore’s film was announced.

    We are just about at the right time for a film with a title like “The Steve McIntyre Story,” but I do not expect such a film anytime soon except perhaps as a hatchet job.

  13. Mike says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am

    You are obviously new to this blog. The reasons for the complaints about the adjustments and the methodology used have been very well documented and discussed over the course of the last several years. I don’t have the time to compile all of it for you right now, but I’m sure others will fill in the gap.

    I will leave with this parting question for you, though. Why is it that all of Hansen’s adjustments tend to make the pre-1970s temps colder and post-1970s temps warmer?

  14. Mike — you may be right (and then again …)
    But how can we really tell when all climate research is based on anomalies? All I can tell from the graphs is that in the first one the 30s showed the greatest anomaly (as compared with what?) and in the second one they don’t. They tell me nothing about the actual temperatures and they leave me (and others) with the distinct impression that “climate scientists” can produce whatever figures best suit their argument by continually adjusting their base, the period they are measuring, their 5-,10-, or any other-year means, and for all I know the colour of their socks.
    I have asked the question before: What is the earth’s actual temperature today? What is its “correct” temperature? Since even Hansen has admitted that temperature is not a useful metric what are we all arguing about? And why are we threatening to spend trillions of taxpayers’ dollars and “bomb us all back to the stone age” on the basis of figures that make whatever sense you care to make of them, which probably in the final analysis means ‘none at all’?
    I don’t know whether climate science is a con because I’m not a scientist; I do know that what the climate scientists do with figures bears more than a passing resemblance to the old street con-trick called ‘Find the Lady’!

  15. Mike

    It doesn’t matter how much BS you throw at it altering historical data is a criminal scientific act.

  16. The easiest way to prove the adjustment would be to use actual temperature
    rather than ‘anomalies’ or derivatives. Increasingly, the use of derivative information serves merely to confuse. And as this thread discusses, merely to prove the preordained supposition. It is intentional, and in the real sense, ultimately meaningless. The entire world has been swept into a trap wherein actual data is expendable.
    As for the revision, it too is a con job, plain and simple. Whether a different and longer base line is utilized as a reader here maintains, or if the information was adjusted without explanation, the intent is to create the impression that the planet is warmer now than it was in the 1930s, early 40s. And according to comparable thermometer readings it was not. Not in the Continental America, not in Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Camada, or Europe, including Scandinavia .

  17. Is that it?

    Northern Latitutes up 1.2 C in 110 years.
    Low Latititudes up 0.6 C in 110 years.
    Southern Latitudes up 0.8 C in 110 years.

    Seriously, that’s the warming we’ve seen? And this is supposed to be a crisis? Even if I accept that Hansen’s adjustments are all perfectly reasonable, that is not enough warming for me to worry about. Is this a joke? Haha, very funny. You had me going for while…

  18. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Mike

    Do you think it is a coincidence that Hansen has devoted his life’s work towards proving global warming, and that the adjustments always move towards support of that idea?
    ————————————————————————————–
    Steven, and what is it you are doing?

  19. Mike writes:

    “Your statement that the adjustment was magical or somehow designed to give a certain result is without basis. If you think the adjustments where wrong you need to present your analysis of the methods used.”

    I don’t think the word “adjustment” means what you think it means. When someone does an adjustment, he is CHANGING something. When there is a CHANGE in something that several people had used in common for some time, the people who did not make the change will require an explanation of the change. So, now do you understand the meaning of “adjustment?” You invert the meaning of the word, attempting to place the burden of explanation on the people who are asking that the adjustment be explained. If you know the explanation, why don’t you give it to us?

    However, you face another problem. As a long time follower of so-called climate science, I can assure you that in all the adjustments made by climate scientists, all of them are in accordance with climate change hysteria. Why is that?

  20. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Mike

    As states in the article, 1998 increased by about half a degree after the adjustment. Look closer at the graph, and in particular watch the video again. There is no question that older temperatures became cooler and newer temperatures became warmer.
    ————————————————————————————
    Graphs may be adjusted for sound reasons, do you have proof that it was not? Making assumptions is skating on thin ice.

  21. Mike
    The “What’s New” points you quote… I’m sure that you aren’t suggesting that satellites can now look back in time to measure nightlights during the 1930s.

  22. Ted,

    What is the source of your blink map? The 199os temperatures in the base graph had already been adjusted upwards considerably from the one I used :

    It appears that there was an intermediate adjustment prior to 2000.

  23. Re Mike says: July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am

    “Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.”

    Doesn’t that rather contradict your earlier statement that:

    “If you think the adjustments where wrong you need to present your analysis of the methods used.”

    So until this mythical nightlight paper is revealed to the world, then that method used is unknown, other than the way it appears to amplify warming. Then we could perhaps compare IR imagery of urban night scenes to visible light, and question whether it’s a reasonable way to adjust temperature. If it’s not lit, it must be rural, and ignore councils/local governments that are helping save the planet, energy and light polution by turning lights off at night.

  24. In a recent talk on climate that I gave I had the following as a PowerPoint slide:

    **********
    HELP IS ON THE WAY…..

    Authorities realized that the existing U.S. temperature network was faulty.
    A new U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) of 114 stations was set up by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    **********

    The new network is guaranteed to have sensors located in good positions. The problem is that we will have to wait a further 30 – 50 years to know what is REALLY happening with the US climate. (And that this averages only two sensors per state.)

    IanM

  25. Josh Grella says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Mike says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am

    You are obviously new to this blog.

    I will leave with this parting question for you, though. Why is it that all of Hansen’s adjustments tend to make the pre-1970s temps colder and post-1970s temps warmer?
    ———————————————————————————-
    Because it is correct? Do you have proof that it isn’t?

  26. Mr. Goddard,
    If you were to ask me, I would say that you should have presented an overlay with the axes clearly marked to indicate to which data set each belongs. I presume from the text that the data were rotated counter-clockwise but the movie and the depicted overlay (on the movie link) imply a clockwise rotation. In fact, the movie uses a clockwise rotation and, to anyone such as myself who is used to time progressing from THEN to NOW, the impression is the later temperatures which are being lowered. I doubt you intended that.

    PS. The 1930 temperatures (among others) do not coincide under any rotation and cannot be explained by it. Try grabbing the slider and wiggle it back and forth to see what I mean.

  27. Mike

    Presumably you are a proponent of the tradtional school of climate alarmist thought: “If the data does not support the model or theory, then the data needs to be changed,”

  28. Sam the Skeptic says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:37 am
    It is about finding the money to pay the national debt.
    Even if it was cooling, it would be blamed on CO2.
    It is a win, win game.

  29. davidklein40

    What am I doing? I am spotting questionable and unreliable science.

    Most companies go to great lengths to get their bugs out before releasing a product. In climate science, they have nothing but a sloppy and incestuous “peer review” process. Can you imagine if a corporate accountant made an after-the-fact adjustment like that? He would end up in court.

  30. Sam the Skeptic says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Mike — you may be right (and then again …)

    I don’t know whether climate science is a con because I’m not a scientist; I do know that what the climate scientists do with figures bears more than a passing resemblance to the old street con-trick called ‘Find the Lady’!
    ————————————————————————————
    So, what about the (few) sceptical scientists, all above board?

  31. You mean the ‘dust bowl’ years were the hottest years – how can that be? Are you not aware of the climate change narrative – you are bursting their bubble of literally ‘hot air’

  32. I much prefer Anthony’s blink comparator; really drives the point home.

    Here’s an idea:

    Send a copy of the blink comparator to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI, so he can do a follow-up on his amendment calling for a report from NASA on their data integrity. (See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/22/while-cap-and-trade-dies-nasa-giss-gets-a-congressional-amendment/ ). Tack on some visual aids, such as photos of that quality station in Carefree, AZ.

  33. stephen richards says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Mike
    It doesn’t matter how much BS you throw at it altering historical data is a criminal scientific act.
    ————————————————————————————
    A criminal scientific act? You use the word altering (with sinister connotation) while adjusting is the proper word. Have you any data to prove that data was ‘altered’ to create a false result? Are you aware that this is about US temperatures and not global.

  34. GISTEMP Movie Matinées
    Posted on July 23, 2010 by Anthony Watts

    By Steve Goddard
    ————————————————————————————-
    Can you provide the source data for the graph in the video and who produced the graph.

  35. Scott B says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Is that it?

    Northern Latitutes up 1.2 C in 110 years.
    Low Latititudes up 0.6 C in 110 years.
    Southern Latitudes up 0.8 C in 110 years.

    Seriously, that’s the warming we’ve seen? And this is supposed to be a crisis? Even if I accept that Hansen’s adjustments are all perfectly reasonable, that is not enough warming for me to worry about. Is this a joke? Haha, very funny. You had me going for while…
    ———————————————————————————–
    Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.

  36. Steve et al,

    If you don’t understand why the adjustments where made, do some research and find out. I did not say you where wrong, I said you had no basis for your claim. (I suspect you are wrong, but I have not shown that.)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
    Figures on this page were prepared by Dr. Makiko Sato. Please address questions about the figures to Dr. Sato or to Dr. James Hansen.

    See also:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

  37. FREEZING on the North Yorkshire moors in yesterday’s fieldwork (for a July afternoon, one would never imagine that this is the hottest year ever on Planet Earth). I noticed that the photos of the Lion Inn near Westerdale from the very cold years of the 1960’s had record snows (up to the roof level)-this during years with highly negative North Atlantic Oscillation indices (cf. also AO, PDO, etc.). Just some weather notes from over here….

  38. Mike says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Mike, everyone here would love to see exactly that: The true RAW data, and an explanation of every single adjustment or algorithm applied to it; Not just at GISS, but NOAA as well. Just because Hansen penned out a “reason” for the “adjustment” doesn’t mean anything. Those of us who’ve followed this know exactly the monkey business that seems to pervade those “adjustments”.

  39. Mike: July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am
    Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.

    The tree-rings were proven to be a lousy proxy for temperature, so now they’re using lumens, regardless if the source is incandescent, phosphorescent, fluorescent, bioluminescent, low-intensity sodium, LED, or photon torpedoes — because all those sources radiate at the exact same temperature…

    *a-hem*

  40. The exagerated application of adjustments will become unsustainable.

    When the charts say we are 5 degrees warmer in 2020, which is what they will need to say to maintain current trend, but the snow still falls in winter and the glaciers still grow and shrink, … then this cult will be put to rest.

  41. All I needed to know was that the GISS adjustment for Urban Heat Island effect INCREASED the recent temperature anomalies. That, folks, is the wrong way. If I am wrong on this, would somebody please explain why.

    Then I looked at the monthly average temperatures published by Hadley, the HadCRU temperatures, for 80-plus cities in the lower 48 states in the USA, and found that there was essentially zero warming. I don’t think even Hadley would dare manipulate those temperatures since those are very easy to check. But anomalies are far easier to fudge. I posted the 80-plus temperature graphs on my blog.

    What little warming is to be found is due to what I call the Abilene Effect, where unusually cold winters in the late 1970s and early 1980s, followed by normal temperatures give the appearance of a warming trend.

  42. Maureen Matthew says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:03 am
    You mean the dust bowl years were the hottest years how can that be?

    How much asphalt did they have back then?
    What no sprinkler systems for the crops as well?

  43. davidklein40 says:

    I don’t believe this is your real name but however, The 2 datasets that steve uses are the official ones, correct? They have been altered historically as steve proves, correct ? Altering historical data, when I was a commercial researcher, was a criminal act punishable by a fine or prison and lose of job and pension.

    N’importe quoi la raison être it is illegal, steve has proven the fact using your data. BS and strawmen aside it is indisputable.

  44. davidklein40 says:

    On the same theme. Show us the proof that millions of kj are in the oceans. The argos bouys don’t appear to be showing it, do they?

  45. It was very hot during the 1930s, as anyone who lived through it can tell you.
    Yes, I have met a few of those, and they do say it’s never been that bad since.
    Heat, bugs, dust and horrid economic times.
    The latter condition is a work in progress, though.

  46. Mike,

    Most of us have repeatedly seen charts of all time highs in North America. And they don’t resemble the story GISS is peddling. Still trust Mr. Hansen?

  47. davidklein40 says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Graphs may be adjusted for sound reasons, do you have proof that it was not? Making assumptions is skating on thin ice.

    They may be adjusted for political and environmental activists reasons too.

    James Hansen is not open to other people looking at his work. That is where your focus should be, not on those who are looking at his work at wanting answers.

  48. Further to the first comment in this thread by James Brisland, it is a very safe bet that, in England, 2010 will NOT be the warmest year ever.

    In fact, 2010 is on course to be the COLDEST year in England since at least 1998.

    The warmest calendar year since end-1997 is 2002 when the average monthly temperature was 10.51°C.

    Last year the average was only 9.88°C.

    This year January and February were both very cold months with the result that the sum of monthly temperatures up to the end of June is only 43.9°. For the same period in 2009, the sum was 49.3.

    The coldest calendar year in the series since 1997 is currently 2008 at 9.78°C.

    For 2010 merely to equal 2008, the sum of the remaining 6 months of the year must exceed 73.5. Such a total has been achieved only once since 1997, in 2006 when both September and October were exceptionally warm.

    Typically the total for the second half of the year is around 70, although it has been a few degrees less than this for the last three years. Tantalisingly, if the second half of 2010 were to produce a figure of 70, the monthly average would be 9.49°C, which is the average for 1961-1990, a period that has been the reference point for the Met Office.

    I accept of course that England is only a small place and its contribution to global temperature is easily offset by above-average temperatures elsewhere.

    Still you might have thought that the Telegraph would at least have mentioned something about England when referring to 2010 as the warmest year ever.

  49. @ davidklein40:

    Because it is correct? Do you have proof that it isn’t?

    Because God told me it isn’t. Do you have proof that he didn’t?

  50. Mike,

    I believe the justification (in brief form) was that there is (in the raw data) a growing divergence in the anomaly data between rural and urban sites — with urban sites reporting warmer anomalies.. Homogenization algorithms were developed to adjust the temperature record such that the anomalies were eliminated. Given the consensus climate science position that there is no significant Urban Heat Island affect, the only choice for the algorithm was one that effectively lowers past rural temperatures in order to remove the divergence.

    That’s what my old grad adviser called “jumping from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion with no intervening steps.”

    So Mike, are you comfortable with that adjustment?

  51. kwik says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:22 am

    If I needed money to investigate some dubious issue, Hansen would be the man to contact, no doubt. Like e.g. the bacteria flora around the rectum of the Polar Mice.

    But would I buy an “Old, Used Climate Model” from him? No, I dont think so.
    ————————————————————————————
    Ad hominem.

  52. davidklein40: July 23, 2010 at 7:12 am
    You use the word altering (with sinister connotation) while adjusting is the proper word.

    An alteration is an adjustment and an adjustment is an alteration.

    Have you any data to prove that data was ‘altered’ to create a false result? Are you aware that this is about US temperatures and not global.

    The world was not created thirty years ago. The unadjusted data is from the US National Weather Service archives, and — obviously — addresses US temperatures. If you want global temps, good luck with that — you won’t find measurements that even pretend to be accurate within 2°C for the Southern Hemisphere (except for HadCRUT, and they’re obviously fooling themselves with their one station per 5°x5° grids) until after 1979.

  53. @ davidklein40 (again):

    Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.

    Oh, I see how this works! I can’t prove there isn’t excess heat stored in the oceans, so it must be there! Of course, nobody can prove it didn’t radiate away to space either, but that is just splitting hairs…

  54. The works of Briffa, Mann and Hansen fall more and more into the realm of cryptohistory:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptohistory#Goodrick-Clarke.27s_description_of_cryptohistory

    The works of Rahmstorf, Trenberth and Hansen with respect to modeling are better described as fringe science.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_physics

    Here’s the working principle: fringe science variant of backradiation explained.
    http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/19541.html

    So we can say that Hansen is not only a leading cryptohistorian but also a leading fringe scientist.

  55. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:02 am

    davidklein40

    What am I doing? I am spotting questionable and unreliable science.

    Most companies go to great lengths to get their bugs out before releasing a product. In climate science, they have nothing but a sloppy and incestuous “peer review” process. Can you imagine if a corporate accountant made an after-the-fact adjustment like that? He would end up in court.
    ———————————————————————————–
    If you consider anything questionable and/or unreliable, give me the justification.
    Your generalised statement about climate science is hysterical and not justified and the analogy irrelevant. An accountant may well make a justified adjustment, be it before or after the fact.

  56. Dave F says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:00 am (Edit)

    @ davidklein40 (again):

    Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.

    Oh, I see how this works! I can’t prove there isn’t excess heat stored in the oceans, so it must be there! Of course, nobody can prove it didn’t radiate away to space either, but that is just splitting hairs…

    Actually, there is some excess heat-energy in the oceans, as the rise in steric sea level shows, but it was put there by the sun, not co2, and we’ll be thankful for it as solar activity takes a dive for a couple of cycles.

  57. Mike and davidklein40,

    When it comes to financial audits, the “adjustments” you are talking about result in people going to prison.

    Come on! Are you going to pretend with a straight face that you don’t know something that a child can see from the first sight: the real data have been manipulated to show much more warming than really exist (if any), to scare politicians and the general public into giving up more and more money.

    La patrie planete est a danger!
    What could be more pathetic than your way of making a living?

  58. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:51 am

    davidklein40

    Both graphs have the original NASA links embedded in the article. The video uses the same graphs.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Who combined and rotated the graph?

  59. davidklein40 says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:55 am

    “Graphs may be adjusted for sound reasons, do you have proof that it was not? Making assumptions is skating on thin ice.”

    Ah the burden of proof – prove it, prove it! Yet these same alarmists cannot “prove” that CO2 has caused most of the twentieth century warming, and when pressed simply appeal to precautionary principles and the like. The solution to the question of data adjustments is simple – release all raw data, methods and computer code and then all will be revealed. Would you support such scrutiny or should we do nothing and accept bland assurances?

  60. Steve:

    Adjustments are made to homogenize individual station records for changes in station siting, population changes, and discontinuities. For other global temperature data sets it’s been shown that the distribution of the adjustments is nicely centred around zero. I.e. raw and adjusted datasets have essentially the same mean temperature trend: up.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/#more-2351

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/

    http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/#comment-383

    It would be interesting to see what the net effect of adjustments are in GISTEMP, but visually comparing data on graphs with different x and y axes is not the way to do it.

  61. Dave F says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:52 am

    @ davidklein40:

    Because it is correct? Do you have proof that it isn’t?

    Because God told me it isn’t. Do you have proof that he didn’t?
    ————————————————————————————–
    A stupid comment, belief is not science, just give me proof.

  62. Is it possible to obtain NASA’s original data sets and also precise descriptions of their adjustment methods, including copies of their adjustment algorithms, so as to enable the construction of a fully traceable, fully auditable process pathway from the pre-2000 graphic to the equivalent 2010 graphic?

  63. Nightlights not population? On the face of it the adjustments should be the other way around, lowering latter temps to account for UHI, population growth, reduced use of rural data, dramatic increase in the size and use of airports since the 70’s, not to mention the deplorable state of sites all over our country. It doesn’t make sense to people like me, I may not be as educated as mike but aren’t these the questions that should be asked and answered (accounted for first). It’s why I have a difficult time with AGWs and the things they care and write about, the king is naked as a jay bird but they seem not to notice. If the world is warming dramatically and we are headed for trouble, I want to know it so that we could do something about it. Don’t ask me to turn my world upside down on the basis of tortured logic, obfuscation and computer fantasies about the future.

  64. I do believe that before trillions of dollars etc. are spent on causing total economic chaos because of reducing fossil fuel use and the resulting huge reduction in the standard of living in those countries that adopt these unworkable stategies and consequently all of the third-developing world countries we need to sort out these issues.

    A few tens of millions and a rigorous,frank and open rework of the records and the science is what is required and in my opinion essential. If they have nothing to hide why would they object?

  65. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:53 am

    I am fully aware of the rationalizations behind the “adjustments.” I just don’t find them credible. You don’t mess with data like that.
    —————————————————————————————
    Just because you don’t find it credible, doesn’t mean that the data was ‘messed’ with. Have you investigated peer review? I guess not because in your words it is a “sloppy and incestuous process”.

  66. Davidklein40, nice for you to give us all a refreshing reminder of the major flaw in the sceptic movement–the lack of even a shred of evidence in support of their claims surrounding manipulation of data. You see, after countless inquiries into the science follwoing the so called “climategate” no act of manipulation of climate data has been found. Yet still the sceptic movement refuses to believe it, now attacking the integrity of the inquiries themselves. The movement is no longer showing health scepticism– it is completely in DENIAL.

    MJK

  67. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:57 am

    davidklein40: July 23, 2010 at 7:12 am
    You use the word altering (with sinister connotation) while adjusting is the proper word.
    An alteration is an adjustment and an adjustment is an alteration.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Either can be justified.

  68. From Icecap:

    Sunday, July 18, 2010
    Progressive Enhancement of Global Temperature Trends
    By Joseph D’Aleo

    Recently we shared a story in the Wall Street Pit how NASA has gradually reduced the warm middle 20th century blip and created a more continuous warming. You can see in this 1976 National Geographic graph, a rather significant warm period starting in the 1920s and peaking during the dust bowl era in the United States in the 1930s and only slowly declining heading into the 1950s. It showed more significant cooling in the 1960s and 1970s. The story questioned where to from there.

    More: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/creative_enhancement_of_global_temperature_trends1/

    See also http://wallstreetpit.com/20710-climategate-goes-back-to-1980

  69. Remember history is written by the winners. I’m guessing it is “adjusted” by those who want to be more important than they are…

  70. davidklien40
    Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.
    ———————–
    If you know where that heat is call Dr. Trenberth right away ‘cuz he’s missing a whole pile of it—I think he’s even offering a reward.

  71. stevengoddard,

    “I am fully aware of the rationalizations behind the “adjustments.” I just don’t find them credible. You don’t mess with data like that.”

    Why not link to NASA’s explanation of the adjustments then? Or to anything you’ve written previously explaining why you don’t find their explanation credible? Otherwise, it seems you’re simply saying any adjustment at all to the raw data is prima facie evidence of skullduggery. Which seems a pretty ridiculous attitude here, given Anthony’s obsession with poorly sited temperature measuring stations, since it would preclude making any adjustment to correct for biases that might be introduced to the temperature record by those poorly sited stations.

  72. Dave F says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:00 am

    @ davidklein40 (again):

    “Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come”.

    Oh, I see how this works! I can’t prove there isn’t excess heat stored in the oceans, so it must be there! Of course, nobody can prove it didn’t radiate away to space either, but that is just splitting hairs…
    ————————————————————————————
    You can’t prove; are you a scientist?

  73. True tallbloke but all of that excess energy is concentrated in a thin veneer that resides on the ocean surface above the thermocline. This notion of heat hiding away in the depths is fantasy at its best and purely a get-out strategy. It defies logic and physics.

  74. Remember the similar thing that happened to the NH sea ice anomaly chart between March and June 2007? Don’t know whether you ever did a post on it. The separate images are available at the internet archive.

  75. We are repeating the cycle that ended the Roman Empire, when the Roman maximum ended. Thus no surprise. Buy more pop-corn!
    The present time version of those times church is the Green Church….now we need a Circus, Lions and martyrs!!…However would they like Al Baby?

  76. I put up a comment in unthreaded at CA back on December 22 concerning the GISS changes to US temperatures since 1998. With Climategate in full swing it didn’t get much notice at the time. The adjustments made between January and November 2009 are stunning. That comment seems to fit well with this post by Steve Goddard so I am reproducing it below.

    I utilized three Giss graphs from publications with data ending in 1998, 1999, and 2006. Sources are Hansen et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 2001, and the recent Hansen PDF “The Temperature of Science” which is currently under discussion at WUWT.

    Oddly, in the recent publication Hansen included the outdated 2006 US temperature graph in a mix with other graphs from 2009. Kind of makes one wonder why he didn’t use a more recent one. A look at the available graphs and data 1998-2008 may aid in solving that conundrum.

    I also used a copy of Giss US 48 data updated 01/01/2009 which I downloaded awhile ago. Recently I went back and got the latest update 11/14/2009. That was three weeks before Copenhagen and a few days before Climategate erupted. Both updates have the same url so the older copy is no longer available. Here is the link for the current data.

    Extracting temperature values from the Giss graphs by blowing them up in Photoshop and doing a pixel count was rather tedious. So my concern focused on the history of the current top six US annual temperatures as of the end of 2008. Combining the graph data along with the two data files downloaded allowed production of a useful graph.

    Here is the Graph.

    We now have new co-leaders in the race to the top of the US temperature world. Although aged 1934 broke quickly from the gate with an anomaly of 1.45c, it has now faded to 3rd with a value of 1.26c. The 1998 contender got off to a slow start with a mediocre value of 0.92c, but came on strong to be in a neck and neck tie with the 2006 youngster who recovered after an early stumble to tie for the lead with 1.29c.

    Is it possible the new rankings were to be announced to coincide with Copenhagen, but Climategate put the kibosh on them sticking their head up unnecessarily by making the announcement?

    With all the Climategate fallout in recent weeks, perhaps the solution to the conundrum of mixing old and new graphs lays with Hansen not wanting to draw unnecessary fire concerning 1934 falling to third in the US temperature rankings.

    I don’t know, but hey, when you see temperatures move around like that I guess anything is possible in climate science.

    Here are links to the Giss provided graphs and the ones I made.
    Giss graphs from publications. x,y axis are not uniform in length.
    Jan 2009 data graph.
    Nov 2009 data graph
    Data adjustments made between Jan 2009 and Nov 2009.

    PS.
    In 1998 the year 1953(not shown) was ranked 4th with a value of 0.94c, but fell to 11th in the current temperature rankings at 0.86c.

  77. “Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.”

    Nope. The ocean heat content has actually dropped since 2003 http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png. There is no “excess energy stored in the oceans”.

  78. Where can I find a list of 2009 WUWT articles? My blink graph came from a WUWT article sometime after Dec. 2008( I lost everything before that time because my C drive was wiped out by a virus).

  79. My grandfather was a wine-grower and farmer in southwest Germany for his entire life. He was born 1899 and passed away in 1995. When I was a kid, he told me the story of his coffee tree. In the 1930s he was given a few raw coffee berries from a friend who worked in a botanic garden. He planted the berries in the warmest spot he could find: near the (stone) terrace wall of his south facing terraced vineyard. The coffee berries sprouted and after a few years he harvested enough coffee beans to roast and make a few cups of his own coffee (real coffee being an expensive rarity in 1930s Germany). Soon thereafter (toward the end of the 1930s) the small coffee tree froze to death in the winter, no matter how well he tried to protect it.
    He said the weather was never that warm since then.
    So much for “today is the warmest ever”, and for “but this 1930s anomaly is valid only for the US”.

  80. davidklein40 is real upset.

    David, since the science is settled, why are they still arguing with skeptics after all these decades?

    It’s been almost a 1/2 century.
    Can’t they prove it yet?

  81. davidklein40: July 23, 2010 at 8:19 am
    Bill Tuttle says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:57 am
    An alteration is an adjustment and an adjustment is an alteration.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Either can be justified.

    Neither can be justified if the intent is deception.

  82. ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

    These adjustments/alterations/modifications/etc. have never been satisfactorily explained.

  83. “Someday Hollywood will make a blockbuster movie about the global warming hysteria of the early 21st century.”
    __________________

    Nope! Don’t think so! Bollywood will likely have to do the job. With AGW sucking the life out of everything in California these days, it won’t be long at all before Hollywood and LA burn up in a Giant Brushfire anyway. Besides, the US film and tv folks have terminal cases of brain cancer and foot-in-mouth disease. Bet the Indians get Brit actors to do a lot of the stuff we used to do before all our studios died. The Brits are the only real actors anymore who speak English.

  84. If you torture the data long enough, it will eventually ”confess” anything you want.
    CAGW supporters will be as cruel to the data as they need to be, in order to ”prove” their point.

  85. While it’s certainly more fun to attribute nefarious purposes to something that’s very difficult to understand (i.e. the proper analysis of millions of data records collected over the entire globe during a 130 year period), sometimes it’s prudent to withhold judgement until more evidence is provided.

    Data analysis this complex is bound to have errors and mistakes. Good science, in any field, will continually attempt to improve the quality of the data and results obtained through analysis. That’s bound to result in different graphs and plots over time. If it didn’t, then one might consider nefarious activities.

    Several posters commented that all of Hansens adjustments result in more warming. That is incorrect. The latest paper (currently in draft form, soon to be sumitted for publication) linked to on the GISS analysis page (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)discusses errors in their previous 2001 paper. The corrections in the latest paper show a decrease in the US warming from that previously published. That is how science is supposed to work.

    It’s also important to keep in mind that data corrections for just the US tend to be almost inperceivable when incorporated into the global temperature. And the good agreement on global temperature changes between Hansen, NOAA, HadCRUT, and the Japan Meteorological Agency should produce some level of confidence for any observer.

  86. the homoginization of rising urban readings with non rising rural reading DOES NOT eleiminate the UHI, it simply spreads it between urban and rural sites …

    site A, urban is 2 degrees above site B, rural …

    to remove the UHI from site B would require adjusting site A down 2 degrees … instead we get an average where site A and B are blended which causes site A to be reduced 1 degree and site B to raised by 1 degree … we still end up with 2 degrees of UHI between the 2 sites …

  87. In the big picture these adjustments are insignificant. Global climate is
    definitely warming, have a look at this synoptic poster:

    … add to that further corroborating evidence; permafrost thawing, glaciers,
    changing plant and animal distributions.

  88. stevengoddard says:
    July 23, 2010 at 10:27 am
    jose,

    The x and y axes are identical in the two graphs.

    GeoFlynx – The first graph you show ends in the year 2000, while the second ends in 2010. Clearly these are NOT the same and this gives a false impression, due to the large increase in temperature in the past decade. Further, in the second graph, the one that ends in 2010, a five year running average will INCLUDE data from years beyond 2000 into the mean of earlier years. Since the temperatures are warmer in the years following 2000, this will bias your slope in the overlay making it appear that the temperatures in the second graph were adjusted higher than they were. This is not an accurate comparison.

  89. Mike says:
    July 23, 2010 at 6:06 am

    OK, I’ll take your bait.

    Feb. 16, 2010: Urban adjustment is now based on global nightlights rather than population as discussed in a paper in preparation.

    Please Dr. Hansen, show the correlation between nightlights and towns with populations below 5000. then show me the correlation between nightlights, tarmac, air conditioning units, BBQs, and airport traffic (as that is where the stations are located.)his data used to createadjustment

    Nov. 14, 2009: USHCN_V2 is now used rather than the older version 1. The only visible effect is a slight increase of the US trend after year 2000 due to the fact that NOAA extended the TOBS and other adjustment to those years.

    Look at the graph, the “slight increase” is a change of .04 C/decade to .o75 C/decade. Almost double. So President Clinton, what is the definition of “it” and “slight”.
    Why did they extend the TOBS? Weren’t almost all US stations changed 1995-1999? Oh, the paper isn’t out yet. Wait for captain trade to be passed.

  90. Mikael Pihlström: July 23, 2010 at 11:18 am
    In the big picture these adjustments are insignificant. Global climate is
    definitely warming, have a look at this synoptic poster:
    http://www.igbp.net/images/CCI-composite_bigger.jpg

    In 2004, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) announced that human beings were responsible for all climate change that had occurred over the previous half-million years. It appears they believe that H. erectus had factories cranking out SUVs…

    … add to that further corroborating evidence; permafrost thawing

    According to the Russians — who *live* there — permafrost thawing is “exaggerated”:
    “We have presented the first experimental evidence that the expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic triggered by climate warming may reduce summer permafrost thaw.”
    And that’s from a warmist site.
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/03/17/problems-with-the-permafrost/

    glaciers

    Some are in retreat and some are advancing. It’s what glaciers *do*.

    changing plant and animal distributions.

    Such as?

    Someone tried to tell me the Persian earless toad is threatened by habitat loss in northern Iraq. There are at least ten living under my *porch* over here, and you can’t walk fifty feet in any direction without seeing at least *one* hopping out of your way.

  91. Neither GISS nor NOAA nor Met Office temperatures can be trusted. First of all, they all show that “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties that does not exist. What does exist is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, until 1998 brings real warming. In four years global average temperature rises by 0.3 degrees and then stabilizes for the next six years – the twenty-first century high. The ups and downs of the eighties and nineties are nothing more than a reflection of the El Nino phenomenon – there are five El Nino peaks separated by La Nina valleys before the super El Nino of 1998 arrives. That one does not belong to ENSO like the others do and was caused by a storm surge in the Indo-Pacific region that dumped much warm water on the equatorial countercurrent near New Guinea. You will not see that stepwise increase of global temperature which started in 1998 in any of these curves because it is wiped out by the imaginary “late twentieth century warming.” This is the biggest distortion but not the only one. I checked out the links Mike gives and found that they consider 1998 and 2005 tied for the warmest year. This is dead wrong – 1998 is without a doubt the warmest and 2005 is just a part of the twenty-first century high. And as pointed out, they are screwed up with the thirties too. What is more, they show a heat wave during World War II which is laughable. If you lived through the war you know that the temperature dropped sharply in the winter of 1940 and stayed down for the duration. The Finnish winter war of of 1939/40 was fought in the bitter cold of minus fifty Celsius. It was cold even after the war and the blizzard of 1947 brought New York City to a standstill. And these continual adjustments they do are nothing more than manipulations to show that warming is serious. All their predictions are now off the charts because there was no warming during that twenty-first century high. It ended with the 2008 La Nina that rattled the CRU workers as Climategate shows. This one signified the return of the oscillating climate that the super El Nino and its aftermath had disturbed. It was followed by the 2010 El Nino which has just peaked and the next La Nina is already on the way. And that anthropogenic global warming? It has never been observed.

  92. Your mention of a/c in theatres reminded me of something.

    Several years ago I was in San Fransisco for training and there was an unusual heat wave. This is when one finds out how few places have air conditioners. I remembered reading about a/c and theaters in the old days, so I thought I would go see a movie. But it didn’t work out. The theater didn’t have a/c =(

  93. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 23, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    According to the Russians — who *live* there — permafrost thawing is “exaggerated”:
    “We have presented the first experimental evidence that the expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic triggered by climate warming may reduce summer permafrost thaw.”
    And that’s from a warmist site.
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/03/17/problems-with-the-permafrost/

    ——

    actually the original article says that the vegetation effect (shrubs) ‘can
    partly offset the thawing’, which intuitively seems reasonable since the tundra landscape is a mosaic and shrub increase is very patchy
    anyhow, the issue was global warming: the temperature is cited as increasing (+),
    driving shrub colonisation (++), and permafrost thawing generally (+++), except
    under shrub colonized new patches (-)

    glaciers…
    indeed, seem to have individual life stories, but taken together
    as a whole, I think there is a lot of retreat lately?

    plant & animal distributions such as:
    http://www.alarmproject.net.ufz.de/index.php?pid=5011

    There are hundreds of examples – but, I guess it will take some time before
    the material is critically reviewed. There are of course many confounding
    factors to think hard about.

  94. Mikael Pihlström says:
    July 23, 2010 at 11:18 am

    In the big picture these adjustments are insignificant.

    In an even bigger picture they’re weighty, because they count against the trustworthiness of the warmist establishment. If it is willing to fiddle with this, what else wouldn’t it fiddle with?

  95. First, it seems pretty clear to me that Hansen bears the burden of proof. His first claim was that the temperatures were X. Then he claimed that temperatures were actually Y and that his earlier claim was wrong. He’s the one making the claims; he has to prove them.

    Also, I agree with the other posters — it’s very suspicious that the adjustment just happens to suit Hansen’s agenda.

  96. For other global temperature data sets it’s been shown that the distribution of the adjustments is nicely centred around zero. I.e. raw and adjusted datasets have essentially the same mean temperature trend: up.

    Think about that for a second. If the adjustments are “centred around zero” then why make them? You only make them in order to adjust the trend. And sure enough, when we look at the graph, we see that the adjustments severely affect the trend. The adjustments are clearly not neutral in effect.

    So that they arithmetically add up to zero is not even remotely relevant if they are not evenly spaced in time and area. (In fact, in order to make adjustments that do not affect the trend I would expect them to not centre on zero. Adding +1 to every number in a graph will not change any trend, but is hardly adding to zero.)

    You seem to be saying “the adjustments make no difference” at the same time as knowing they make a huge difference. It’s an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

    It would be interesting to see what the net effect of adjustments are in GISTEMP, but visually comparing data on graphs with different x and y axes is not the way to do it.

    Another attempt to justify the unjustifiable. We can quickly alter the axes. The result is no significant change in the matter under discussion.

    We can see that. You can see that. Why do you pretend otherwise?

  97. Something that jumps out at me right away… If you look at those two graphs, it looks like the adjusted graph adds about .5C to the unadjusted graph from 2000-2010.

    Now think about that for a second. The original numbers were measured using sophisticated modern techniques during those years. For 9 years those were THE numbers. That was THE temperature record. Then (according to Mike above) in 2009 adjustments started to be made. Isn’t this an admission that the original numbers were wrong or misleading? Isn’t this an admission that there is a healthy margin of error in temperature measurements even in the high tech age?

    So the question that comes to my mind next is: what does that tell us about all that unadjusted data pre-1980? How were those temps being gathered? What was the coverage? If we could go back in time, what kind of adjustments might we want to make to that data? In short, what is the margin of error on all that old data? If it’s +/- .5C on modern data it’s stands to reason that it’s got be a lot more than that on that old data.

    Given that, is it really even meaningful to say that this decade is hotter than another decade 80 years ago? Is the data really accurate enough to say that with any degree of confidence?

  98. Oops! I just realized the first graph ended in 2000 and the second in 2010. I was looking at 1990-2000 on the first and comparing it 2000-2010 on the second. Doh!

    Anyway, my point is that the adjustment seems to me to be an admission that our measurement techniques are far from perfect even if I had the margin of error wrong. I’m still wondering, though, how much confidence do we really have that the older data is correct when we’re still tweaking modern data. Given that the 1930s data is only different from the 2000-2010 data by tenths of a degree, this would seem important to claims of which is the “hottest on record”.

  99. Mikael Pihlström: July 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    anyhow, the issue was global warming: the temperature is cited as increasing (+),
    driving shrub colonisation (++), and permafrost thawing generally (+++), except
    under shrub colonized new patches (-)

    Permafrost thaws whenever the temperature goes above 0ºC, which is what *happens* every summer in Siberia. Temperatures are still not as high as they were a thousand years ago, and they are nowhere near as high as they were during the Holocene optimum, only 5,000 years ago.

  100. “The unpalatable truth is not a welcome ingredient in the making of myths”

    (From Steve Austin’s ABC radio (Australia) interview with Lynette Ramsay Silver the other night)

  101. Mikael Pihlström says:
    July 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I know I know, this was me a couple of years ago as well. The icecaps are melting, animal changes, my garden dying due to the 15 year drought here in Melbourne, and the temps were clearly hotter during the 90’s and the 00’s. I was really getting fearful that this was the global warming they were talking about, that it was LINEAR and we were ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

    But even looking at The Age weather pages, the “hottest ever for this day” was always way back up to 100 years ago etc. I’ve since (thank you WUWT) learned about solar cycles and the relationship between them and the oceans, and the time lag, and can figure it for myself. You don’t need to add “greenhouse gases” into the mix to explain the warming we’ve seen in the last couple of decades.

    But the great news is – it’s NOT LINEAR, even Trenberth has wondered where the heat is lately. It’s coming down off that high after the 1998 el nino. We (in Melb Aus) started getting frequent >40 deg C days during summers in the 90’s. Early 00’s we’d have well over 10 per summer. They’ve tailed off. 1 last summer. And this winter is like my childhood winters of the 70’s. It’s not linear , it doesn’t fit CO2.

  102. davidklein40

    I have just visited ‘your’ blog and it looks like you’re a little lonely there. Could this be the reason for you endless comment fights???

    1 comment and 0 posting!

    You got a long way to go. Get there off your own back and stop using WUWT popularity to launch your sad site.

  103. Philip Foster says:
    July 23, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    The best film they could make – but won’t – is Crichton’s “State of Fear”.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    There are good scripts about politics and/or environmenalism that would show what so many of the people who come to this blog already know about global warming. But Hollywood producers are still making political and environmental movies that are brainchildren of the 60’s. Avatar is a good example of this. There were 60’s stereotypes in it. It did have beautiful and interesting animation. But the script was not worthy of the animation.

  104. The gap between what James Hansen say the temperature is and what people are feeling the temperature is continues to grow. It would be good for the world to see who is behind GISTemp going higher while the world continues having longer harsher winters and milder summers. But I think James Hansen would come to regret having his face attached to NASA temperature data showing hottest years ever, year after year, as the world heads back into a 30 year cooling.

  105. Great discussion! Looks like more and more AGW folks are being sent to this site to comment.

    The biases are sooo interesting.

    Thanks to all, an enjoyable evening at the fights, takes me back to Ed Sullivan and the Honeymooners and heavy weight boxing on TV – so that tells you how old I am …

    Old enough to remember a time that was just as hot, maybe hotter than today.

  106. That’s the chorus. Verses will now be created to match.
    Here’s the first one:

    The ice caps lie over the ocean;
    The icebergs fill up the whole sea;
    The ice sheet is waxing and growin’,
    Oh bring back that Optimum to me!

    >8-)

  107. Ya, ya, I know it doesn’t scan. That’s part of the creative charm!
    And the chorus is incomplete. Here’s the right one:

    Bring back, oh bring back,
    Bring back that Holocene Optimum
    To me, to meee!
    Bring back,
    Oh, bring back,
    Bring back the Holocene Optimum
    To me!

    (Note “Holocene” spelling correction.)

  108. Mikael Pihlström says:
    July 23, 2010 at 11:18 am
    In the big picture these adjustments are insignificant. Global climate is
    definitely warming, have a look at this synoptic poster:

    … add to that further corroborating evidence; permafrost thawing, glaciers,
    changing plant and animal distributions.
    ===========
    Exactly. And, if this keeps up, eventually we’ll reach levels not seen since the MWP. And, if it keeps keeping on, we’ll even eventually reach levels not seen since the RWP.

  109. davidklein40 says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Dave F says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:52 am

    @ davidklein40:

    Because it is correct? Do you have proof that it isn’t?

    Because God told me it isn’t. Do you have proof that he didn’t?
    ————————————————————————————–
    A stupid comment, belief is not science, just give me proof.

    —————————————————

    Sad you don’t see the irony here. Belief is not science and all that, where is the proof the adjustments are needed? Since the adjustment is the action, wouldn’t you need to prove the action was needed? You wouldn’t have open heart surgery on the premise that you can’t prove you don’tneed it.

  110. For all of you who say GISS should provide more info on their algorithms and methods, I say, “Why should they? People will just use that information to analyze the adjustments and see if they’re correct or not. They’ve got over twenty years invested in this! Why should they help their detractors who might possibly find problems in that body of work?”

  111. All detractors will forthwith walk the plank! RealClimateScience doesn’t need your kind! >:(

  112. Jimbo says:
    July 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    davidklein40

    I have just visited ‘your’ blog and it looks like you’re a little lonely there. Could this be the reason for you endless comment fights???

    1 comment and 0 posting!

    You got a long way to go. Get there off your own back and stop using WUWT popularity to launch your sad site.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Opened the blog 3 days ago, writing some posts, stay tuned!

  113. Jimbo says:
    July 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    About davidklein40
    Retired electronics/x-ray engineer. Became interested in global warming 25 years ago and was a sceptic for the first 5 years. science convinced me otherwise and my special interest at present are the Arctic and Antarctic.

    I guess you should have stayed sceptical. :o)
    ———————————————————————————–
    Unlike a lot of people here I make up my own mind, reading the science from both sides of the argument. I don’t treat this site as a mutual admiration society.

  114. Richard M says:
    July 23, 2010 at 11:56 am

    davidklein40, you keep asking for proofs. Where are yours? Prove to us that all the adjustments are valid. Don’t spare any details.
    ————————————————————————————
    There’s a thing called Google. Look up all the sites, both affirmative and contrary, read them with an open mind, don’t cherry pick and suspend your scepticism. That would be a good start.

  115. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 23, 2010 at 10:28 am

    davidklein40: July 23, 2010 at 8:19 am
    Bill Tuttle says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:57 am
    An alteration is an adjustment and an adjustment is an alteration.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Either can be justified.

    Neither can be justified if the intent is deception.
    ———————————————————————————
    Explain how you determine intent.

  116. latitude says:
    July 23, 2010 at 10:26 am

    davidklein40 is real upset.

    David, since the science is settled, why are they still arguing with skeptics after all these decades?

    It’s been almost a 1/2 century.
    Can’t they prove it yet?
    ———————————————————————————
    Can you disprove it? It takes two to tango. What makes you think I am upset? It is not the science that is argueing, it is the few with megaphones.

  117. davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 1:35 am
    Neither [alteration nor adjustment] can be justified if the intent is deception.
    ———————————————————————————
    Explain how you determine intent.

    By examining what was altered, how it was altered, listening to the adjuster’s rationale for the alteration, comparing the adjusted results with the original information, and determining if accepting the adjusted results requires discarding anything known to be true, to both the adjuster and the reviewer.

    Example: I was reviewing several pilots’ flight records when I came across two adjusted entries in one set that increased that pilot’s night flying experience by 300 hours and Pilot-in-Command time by 500 hours. By checking the dates of his unit assignments and knowing their training policies, I knew that there was no possible way he could have flown those hours during those times under those conditions. Hence, the intent was deception.

  118. Ivan says:
    July 23, 2010 at 9:00 am

    “Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.”

    Nope. The ocean heat content has actually dropped since 2003 http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png. There is no “excess energy stored in the oceans”.
    ————————————————————————————–
    A nicely cherry picked out-of-context graph, I suggest you read the entire (Levitus et al – 2009) paper, in particular look at graphs S11 (p 89) and graph S12 (p 99-100)

  119. davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 1:44 am
    latitude says:
    July 23, 2010 at 10:26 am
    David, since the science is settled, why are they still arguing with skeptics after all these decades?
    It’s been almost a 1/2 century.
    Can’t they prove it yet?
    ———————————————————————————
    Can you disprove it? It takes two to tango.

    Solid scientific comeback, there.

    Natural variation is the null hypothesis, AGW is the theory.

    AGW advocates *must* be able to prove both that natural variation cannot account for observed changes, and that increased levels of CO2 cause temperature increases under conditions of free convection, and they can’t prove either.

  120. Sean Peake says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:21 am

    davidklien40
    Yes, you should worry. Excess energy is stored in the oceans and they will remind us for hundreds of years to come.
    ———————–
    If you know where that heat is call Dr. Trenberth right away ‘cuz he’s missing a whole pile of it—I think he’s even offering a reward.
    ————————————————————————————
    What I wonder, a hot water bottle?

  121. A more balanced article that would have snuffed out much of the comment tit and tat at source would have been to have shown the two graphs, explained how they were adjusted and stated your objections, with reasons, to the adjustments. The reader would then see that data had been adjusted and would be able to decide for themselves whether or not the adjustments were acceptable.

  122. Alexander Feht says:
    July 23, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Mike and davidklein40,

    When it comes to financial audits, the “adjustments” you are talking about result in people going to prison.

    Come on! Are you going to pretend with a straight face that you don’t know something that a child can see from the first sight: the real data have been manipulated to show much more warming than really exist (if any), to scare politicians and the general public into giving up more and more money.

    La patrie planete est a danger!
    What could be more pathetic than your way of making a living?
    ————————————————————————————
    Did you see and manipulate the data? Do you understand the data? Can you model the data? I can’t and for that I rely on those who can, from many sources. I don’t presume devious conduct. When you state that it is to scare for less than honourable money raking reasons, I can only reply; Honi, soit qui mal y pense. (Shame upon him who thinks ill of it)
    What is your information about my pathetic way of making a living? Ad hominem?

  123. stephen richards says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:37 am

    davidklein40 says:

    I don’t believe this is your real name but however, The 2 datasets that steve uses are the official ones, correct? They have been altered historically as steve proves, correct ? Altering historical data, when I was a commercial researcher, was a criminal act punishable by a fine or prison and lose of job and pension.

    N’importe quoi la raison être it is illegal, steve has proven the fact using your data. BS and strawmen aside it is indisputable.
    ————————————————————————————-
    As a commercial researcher, are you talking about altering documents versus data? The first is not smart but the latter is about the accuracy of data which may be improved with new technology. Believe what you like about my name. Je Maintiendrai.

  124. An Engineer says:
    July 24, 2010 at 4:36 am

    A more balanced article that would have snuffed out much of the comment tit and tat at source would have been to have shown the two graphs, explained how they were adjusted and stated your objections, with reasons, to the adjustments. The reader would then see that data had been adjusted and would be able to decide for themselves whether or not the adjustments were acceptable.
    ———————————————————————————-
    Amen.

  125. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 24, 2010 at 3:58 am

    davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 1:44 am
    latitude says:
    July 23, 2010 at 10:26 am
    AGW advocates *must* be able to prove both that natural variation cannot account for observed changes, and that increased levels of CO2 cause temperature increases under conditions of free convection, and they can’t prove either.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Doesn’t the matter of proof rests with both sides? The proof is incremental and as such you can hang onto it’s happened before & natural, for decades, centuries, millenia? Plus millions of years to shift the goal posts?

  126. Bill Tuttle says:
    July 24, 2010 at 3:32 am

    davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 1:35 am
    Neither [alteration nor adjustment] can be justified if the intent is deception.
    ———————————————————————————
    Explain how you determine intent.
    ————————————————————————————-
    You provided a nice and easy to understand example. Now give me one just as simple to understand about the issue at hand and believable at that.

  127. Assuming that – 1.) Global Land Temperatures have risen over the past 50 years, 2.) that the primary cause is the heat generated by human urban and industrial construction, transportation, and other ‘life support’, and 3.) that this ever increasing annual “Human Contibution” can be measured for the past 50 years, does it occure to anyone else that Global Temperatures (Land & Sea) are actually declining? When you take the “Human Contribution” variable out of the picture, what has Mother Nature been doing, and is likely still doing to the weather and the climate? AGW doesn’t appear to focus on the BIG question, just a few campfires in the wilderness.

  128. davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 5:12 am
    Doesn’t the matter of proof rests with both sides?

    No. Any null hypothesis is the *starting point* — someone positing a new theory must show that it is falsifiable, and in this instance, the null hypothesis is that the climate naturally varies within the parameters previously observed in past temperatures. The ball is entirely in the AGW court.

    The proof is incremental and as such you can hang onto it’s happened before & natural, for decades, centuries, millenia? Plus millions of years to shift the goal posts?

    So, your rebuttal is that the climate is presently *not* within the limits we have seen in the past. Good luck defending that.

    davidklein40: July 24, 2010 at 5:23 am
    You provided a nice and easy to understand example. Now give me one just as simple to understand about the issue at hand and believable at that.

    Thank you. But now it’s *your* turn.

  129. The proof is incremental and as such you can hang onto it’s happened before & natural, for decades, centuries, millenia? Plus millions of years to shift the goal posts?

    My bad — I misread. Your rebuttal actually is that it isn’t *fair* to use past temperatures, because they kept changing over the millennia.

  130. I need to clarify a point. It is true that the adiabatic temperature gradient dominates the temperature profile – but this would not occur without the greenhouse effect.

    If greenhouse gases did not exist, the atmosphere would remain nearly uniformly cold and would not convect. Without convection, the adiabatic lapse rate would be zero.

  131. davidklein40 says:
    July 24, 2010 at 1:30 am
    Richard M says:
    July 23, 2010 at 11:56 am

    davidklein40, you keep asking for proofs. Where are yours? Prove to us that all the adjustments are valid. Don’t spare any details.
    ————————————————————————————
    There’s a thing called Google. Look up all the sites, both affirmative and contrary, read them with an open mind, don’t cherry pick and suspend your scepticism. That would be a good start.

    Translation: David has no idea how to prove what he appear to believe. So, he tries to deflect … an obvious and very poor response. Sorry David, get back to me with a proof just like you’ve been asking for … otherwise, I find you are nothing more than a troll.

  132. Pascvaks: July 24, 2010 at 5:40 am
    When you take the “Human Contribution” variable out of the picture, what has Mother Nature been doing, and is likely still doing to the weather and the climate? AGW doesn’t appear to focus on the BIG question, just a few campfires in the wilderness.

    More like a few butane lighters held aloft at a “Save Teh Planet” concert…

  133. To David Klien and others:

    These posts are not standalone. There are years of posts pointing out upward bias in temperature measurement and adjustment. Y’all troll in here without that context and complain the article is not a standalone peer-reviewed all-encompassing argument. This article is just a reminder of the many times this particular subject has been discussed. Probably, because of all the new people visiting the site.

  134. Without explained good Reason altering history is corrupt, also I thought CO2 was named a greenhouse gas as it is added to greenhouses to up the growth o the plants!

  135. “EthicallyCivil says:
    July 23, 2010 at 7:53 am
    Mike,

    I believe the justification (in brief form) was that there is (in the raw data) a growing divergence in the anomaly data between rural and urban sites — with urban sites reporting warmer anomalies.. Homogenization algorithms were developed to adjust the temperature record such that the anomalies were eliminated. Given the consensus climate science position that there is no significant Urban Heat Island affect, the only choice for the algorithm was one that effectively lowers past rural temperatures in order to remove the divergence.

    That’s what my old grad adviser called “jumping from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion with no intervening steps.”

    So Mike, are you comfortable with that adjustment?”

    Not sure if you’ll see this, Ethically Civil, but I just thought you might want to know that you’ve misremembered, here. I looked up both the 1999 and 2001 Hansen et al. papers concerning the adjustments being discussed here, and quoting directly from the 1999 paper (bottom of page seven through the beginning of page eight):

    “We take advantage of the metadata accompanying the GHCN records, which includes
    classification of each station as rural (population less than 10,000), small town (10,000 to 50,000), and urban (more than 50,000), to calculate a bilinear adjustment for urban stations. The adjustment is based on the assumption that human effects are smaller in rural locations. We retain the unadjusted record and make available results for both adjusted and unadjusted time series (section 10). The homogeneity adjustment for a given city is defined to change linearly with time between 1950 and the final year of data and to change linearly with a possibly different slope between 1950 and the beginning of the record. The slopes of the two straight line segments are chosen to minimize the weighted-mean root-mean-square difference of the urban station time series with the time series of nearby rural stations. An adjusted urban record is defined only if there are at least three rural neighbors for at least two thirds of the period being adjusted. All rural stations within 1000 km are used to calculate the adjustment, with a weight that decreases linearly to zero at distance 1000 km. The function of the urban adjustment is to allow the local urban measurements to define short-term variations of the adjusted temperature while rural neighbors define the long-term change. The break in the adjustment line at 1950 allows some time dependence in the rate of growth of the urban
    influence.
    The measured and adjusted temperature records for Tokyo, Japan, and for Phoenix, Arizona, are shown in Figure 3. These are among the most extreme examples of urban warming, but they illustrate a human influence that can be expected to exist to some degree in all population centers. Tokyo warmed relative to its rural neighbors in both the first and the second halves of the century. The true nonclimatic warming in Tokyo may be even somewhat larger than suggested by Figure 3, because some “urban” effect is known to occur even in small towns and rural locations [Mitchell, 1953; Landsburg, 1981]. The urban effect in Phoenix occurs mainly in the second half of the century. The urban-adjusted Phoenix record shows little long-term temperature change.”
    (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf)

    Note that rural temperatures aren’t being adjusted to match urban temperatures; quite the opposite. Rural temperatures are treated as the most reliable values, and urban temperatures are adjusted for the effects of city growth, etc. There’s little to no sign of bias, here; in fact, the authors acknowledge that the false warming signal may actually be stronger than they’ve estimated in certain areas.

    Thought you might want to know.

  136. davidklein40 says:
    July 24, 2010 at 4:26 am
    What I wonder, a hot water bottle?
    =======
    That’s your response?

  137. Sean Peake: July 25, 2010 at 8:31 pm
    davidklein40 says:
    July 24, 2010 at 4:26 am
    What I wonder, a hot water bottle?
    =======
    That’s your response?

    Based on empirical observations conducted over an extended three-day timeline, with a smoothed trendline indicating neutral, the shoulda-coulda-woulda-maybe-might response to that is “yes”…

  138. stevengoddard :
    At July 24, 2010 at 6:10 am you assert:

    “If greenhouse gases did not exist, the atmosphere would remain nearly uniformly cold and would not convect. Without convection, the adiabatic lapse rate would be zero.”

    Sorry, but No!
    You are exagerating the effect of greenhouse gases.

    There would be a non-zero lapse rate.

    The Ideal Gas Equation defines that the pressure gradient of an atmosphere in a gravity field ensures there will be a temperature gradient up through the atmosphere when there is no energy input and output by greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    In other words, atmospheric pressure changes with altitude so the lapse rate in the absence of GHGs is a distribution of heat per unit mass that is approximately indicated by
    PV/T=k

    Richard

  139. Richard,

    If there is no heat in the gas, the pressure and temperature approach zero. The volume remains fixed after it condenses to a liquid or solid. There are three degrees of freedom in the ideal gas law.

  140. stevengoddard:

    At July 26, 2010 at 11:16 am you say to me:
    “If there is no heat in the gas, the pressure and temperature approach zero. The volume remains fixed after it condenses to a liquid or solid. There are three degrees of freedom in the ideal gas law.”

    But there is “heat in the gas” in the case being discussed.
    (The only way there could not be “heat in the gas” is if it were at absolute zero Kelvin).

    Importantly, your original assertion (at July 24, 2010 at 6:10 am) was
    “If greenhouse gases did not exist, the atmosphere would remain nearly uniformly cold and would not convect. Without convection, the adiabatic lapse rate would be zero.”

    By “the atmosphere” I understand you to mean the atmosphere of the Earth that is heated by the Sun. The surface of the Earth is warmed on the day side by the Sun and loses heat by radiation from the night side. So, the atmosphere will be heated by conduction from the Earth’s day side surface in the presence or the absence of greenhouse gases.

    Hence, it is impossible for “the atmosphere” to not contain “heat in the gas”.

    And, in the absence of GHGs, the atmosphere will
    (a) be warmed at the surface by conduction on the day side
    and
    (b) be cooled at the surface on the night side.
    This differential heating and cooling will induce convection currents.

    So, there is not “nearly uniformly cold” whether or not GHGs are present.

    In other words, you were plain wrong when you asserted,
    “If greenhouse gases did not exist, the atmosphere would remain nearly uniformly cold and would not convect”.
    You were wrong because your assertions are physical impossibilities.

    Then, there is the added complexity that the Earth rotates each ~24 hours so it drags the atmosphere and this causes atmospheric patterns and turbulence.

    But the essential point is that your original assertions were based on your mistaken idea that “the atmosphere would not convect” if there were no GHGs. And convection leads to the creation of a lapse rate.

    So, as I said at July 26, 2010 at 2:35 am
    “You are exagerating the effect of greenhouse gases.
    There would be a non-zero lapse rate.

    The Ideal Gas Equation defines that the pressure gradient of an atmosphere in a gravity field ensures there will be a temperature gradient up
    through the atmosphere when there is no energy input and output by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    In other words, atmospheric pressure changes with altitude so the lapse rate in the absence of GHGs is a distribution of heat per unit mass that is approximately indicated by
    PV/T=k”

    Richard

  141. stevengoddard:

    As an addendum to my previous post, I point out that an effect of any atmosphere is to reduce temperature extremes across the surface of a planet whether or not the atmosphere contains GHGs. This is because the atmosphere transports heat from hottest surface regions to cooler surface regions.

    And this effect is important because the net effect is to raise mean global temperature.

    Energy is radiated in proportion to the fourth power of temperature (T^4). So, a small lowering of maximum temperature of a hot region lowers its thermal output a lot. A similar raising of minimum temperature from a similar but cooler region increases its thermal output relatively little.

    Hence, the presence of an atmosphere that does NOT contain GHGs raises mean global temperature above the temperature that would exist in the absence of an atmosphere (because of radiative balance between the input and output of energy to the planet).

    Also, it is also important to note that on the real Earth the tropics have a maximum sea surface temperature of 305K. Hence, small changes to the area of the region(s) of maximum surface temperature have a disproportionate effect on mean global temperature.

    I pointed out these facts in my peer review for IPCC AR4, but the IPCC – like you – had the mistaken idea that ONLY GHGs induce an atmosphere to have a lapse rate and to affect average surface temperature. And they ignored my comments.

    Richard

Comments are closed.