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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
james brisland

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.

H.R.

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.

Why does this not surprise me at all?

Joe Lalonde

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!

FergalR

No wonder Hansen’s always banging on about 6°.

Chris L

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

Mike

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/

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.

wws

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.

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?

Chris L

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?

DaveF

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.

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

Spector

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.

Ted Annonson
Josh Grella

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?

Sam the Skeptic

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’!

Ted Annonson
stephen richards

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

pat

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 .

Scott B

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
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…

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?

Theo Goodwin

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?

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.

artwest

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.

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 :
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
It appears that there was an intermediate adjustment prior to 2000.

Atomic Hairdryer

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.

Ian L. McQueen

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

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?

DAV

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.

Peter Miller

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,”

Joe Lalonde

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.

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.

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?

Maureen Matthew

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’

Leon Brozyna

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: http://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.

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.

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.

Scott B says:
July 23, 2010 at 6:50 am
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
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.

Mike

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/

kwik

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.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism

bruce

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….

Enneagram

Why do GWrs. statistics graphs always end in the year 2000?…

Layne Blanchard

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”.

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*

KevinM

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.

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.

Joe Lalonde

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?

Amino Acids in Meteorites

This is what Sensenbrenner should be going after.

stephen richards

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.