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.
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.
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-)
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.)
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:
http://www.igbp.net/images/CCI-composite_bigger.jpg
… 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.
davidklein40 says:
July 23, 2010 at 8:11 am
Dave F says:
July 23, 2010 at 7:52 am
@ur momisugly 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.
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?”
All detractors will forthwith walk the plank! RealClimateScience doesn’t need your kind! >:(
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Nertz. “Close code before posting” — I need to put that on a sticky on my keyboard…