GISTEMP Movie Matinées

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!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

This blink graph shows it better.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif

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 .

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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….

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”.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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?

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?

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.

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.

bruce says:
July 23, 2010 at 7:22 am
As you said, weather notes; weather will still continue under global warming.

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?

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?

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.

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”.

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.

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.

There’s only one group they’re fooling.. and it isn’t us

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.
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/1728/seaicegif.gif

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.

“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”.

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”.

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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

My, how the summer makes people forget the winter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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”.

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.

Small typo:
The science convinced me….

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Nertz. “Close code before posting” — I need to put that on a sticky on my keyboard…

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.

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…

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!

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