By Steve Goddard
During May I wrote about a growing discrepancy between HadCrut and GISTEMP.
Dr. Hansen discusses it here. Excerpt and comparison below:
(1) insight into why the GISS analysis yields 2005 as the warmest calendar year, while the HadCRUT analysis has 1998 as the warmest year. The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.
HadCrut released their January 1850 through June 2010 temperature data yesterday, and something “interesting” happened. Their temperature anomalies from January-April jumped up from their published values on June 3. May probably also jumped, but unfortunately I didn’t capture a record of it previously.
The chart below shows how the HadCrut data changed between June 3 to July 28.
HadCrut still shows 1998 hotter than 2010 so far, but they seem to be working on “correcting” that problem.
Why is it that post facto adjustments always seem to be upwards in later years, and downwards in earlier years? This whole global temperature business looks like a complete joke to me.
========================
Addedum: source HadCRUT data by date:
May 20
June 3
July 28
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdEdMRGVaRlJvUzJSbFNOb21TZmtGeXc&output=html
The current data is available here.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
All three were obtained from the same link on different dates
He who controls the present controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future.
Until some public challenge it mounted to this obvious revisionism they will remain in control.
Is it possible that not one single employee of either the CRU or the NASA climate division has any integrity?
They all accept it, every single employee; accept this changing of the past as ok.
I guess they do not have a choice, if anyone was to speak up then they would have their birth date changed to a larger value which would prove that they lied on their job application.
What a sorry, sad bunch of people.
<iP.F.: July 28, 2010 at 9:38 am
Hansen’s explanation for the discrepancy was “The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.”
Translation: “Our original guess didn’t produce the numbers we wanted, so we increased our guess and backdated it.”
I’m not buying the explanation that someone who’s been yammering about Arctic warming would “forget” to include the Arctic in the original report. I know what a turnip truck looks like, Doc, but I didn’t fall off one…
They could just be correcting for mistakes such as illustrated below :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html
P.F. says:
“Why is it so difficult for others to figure out that Hansen has a very clear bias in his work?”
I agree. Hansen’s bias is plain for anyone to see.
Dr. Hansen’s opinion became an immovable object in 1988. After his unauthorized testimony to Congress (which I must say was a gutsy move–he should have been fired for that), he became tactically unable to admit any error other than, “Oh my God, it’s worse than we thought.” Any retreat would have cost him his Congressional support, and then he WOULD have been fired. I have no doubt that he’s sincere, and I have no doubt that he’s misguided and locked in.
Ed
He lost me at “estimated”.
Well, actually, he lost me when he turned off the A/C for his 1988 testimony, but that was only one of many documented deceptions.
the Hansen & Jones Faktor must be warm, because it is their job to produce global warming.
I`ll spend 100$ if Hadly or GISS will correct their old data up and the actuall Temps. down one time in history.
Hansen does not have the right to use the word “prediction.” He has no set of hypotheses that enable him to predict warming. What he really means is that he hopes that warming will increase in accordance with his graphs. He hopes just as Al Gore hopes; that is, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two.
Summer in the City.
The real question is why aren’t they trying to adjust the surface temp record to the satellite record – which should be far more complete & accurate
…. maybe because it wont support their warming hypothesis ???
This must be what they mean when they say global warming is caused by humans, giss and hadcrut specifically.
Well, if they didn’t adjust upward, then we run afoul of the meme about 2 independent study groups coming to the same conclusion.
“The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
– Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
Emphasis is mine.
We should insist on a published, detailed explanation for any past, present and future alterations of historical temp records. If these are honest alterations is recent past temp readings, then this implies lack of competence when they compiled the records a couple of months ago. Or did they find a significant piece of information that made temp readings clears and didn’t share it with the rest of the world?
And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
“Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”
Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.
It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.
“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”
Mann made global warming. Handcrafted data by the old data smith James Hansen.
It is difficult to beat the old artisans with their handiwork on the data.
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
A lovely bit of sarcasm there.
I can only imagine what their g-mail accounts contain in terms of connivances…..(no danger of FOI requests hitting smoking guns now)
A bad joke indeed.
R. Gates says:
No POSSIBLE way you’re serious about the bolded statements… not even remotely possible. Surely even you must realize how incredibly ludicrous those phrases are.
(and of course, I screwed up a tag… sorry)
On this basis (I know its a bit early still),
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I “is bettin” that NH ice will be 1SD max from normal range. Its going/nearing the 2005-2006 way, so there you go Steve Goddard you may have underestimated after all LOL
Poor ol guys/gals at DMI will probably be closed down for tellin da truth
Pamela Gray says:
July 28, 2010 at 9:36 am
I always have to remind myself to look at the scale. And then ask myself, if that is the scale, what the hell must the error bars look like!?!?!?!?!?
By the way, nightcrawlers in NE Oregon are saying the summers are getting colder. So do the grasshoppers. And the bats. And the birds: there are early signs of migratory birds starting to congregate already…..
__________________________________________________________________
Pam,
AJStrata looked into the error for the global temperature using IPCC data. his article is here:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
And talking about early signs of winter… I am sitting in North Carolina in 90F weather and my equines are already shedding their summer coats and starting to grow their winter coats!?! Darn it I just got the last of the winter coats off them 6 weeks ago!
For what it is worth horses are sensitive to the amount of sunlight. Mares do not come into estrus during the winter months. My vet, who also has horses with shedding problems, was discussing the subject a week ago.
R. Gates
Are you suggesting that the CO2 levels have retroactively increased, forcing them to rewrite historical data?
R. Gates says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
As to getting the data correct; why would they need to adjust old data?
Why was the data corrected without any admission of prior fault or explanation?
If you manipulate data and don’t explain why, it ceases to be science and becomes the equivalent of reading tea leaves.
There may be global warming, and it may be caused by man, but it is nothing like the alarmists are claiming and their proof is a lot weaker than they are willing to admit to. At the point they started fudging data to make their case stronger other scientists should’ve been all to happy to show these Charlatans to the door. Instead we are less well informed than we could be because right now only ‘correct’ climate science is being done.
lol, Stephen and the rest of the WUWT gang are causing a “memory hole” malfunction!
Oddly enough, I was frightened into submission by the title of Dr. Hansen’s book this very morning ( well, frightened by the rapidity of my submission to a snarky urge to post about it) and then, lo and behold, he appears here this afternoon.
Yeah, verily and truly, the man is everywhere.
Since, statistically speaking, average can be anywhere within a given distribution, has anyone run/plotted a 90th percentile? And reviewed it for the change over time?