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
R. Gates says:
and honest highly skilled scientists are working hard to get the data correct, refine their models to take into account increasing knowledge about feedbacks
=========================================================
But Gates, when they told us 30 years ago they knew what they were talking about, they lied.
When they adjusted the data 20 years ago, they said they knew what they were talking about, and lied.
When they adjusted the data 10 years ago, they lied again.
Now they are saying they are right, know what they are talking about with this latest data……
……and in a few years, when they change it again, they will have lied again.
Every time they re-write history, they claim they are right that time, do it again, and lie again.
The Hobbs End Martian says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:04 am
AGW / Climate Change Armageddon; now firmly in the category of Pathological Science
… with an unhealthy dose of Lysenkoism thrown in.
Even if we accept (cough cough) that the adjustments are done for valid reasons, the fact they almost always increase the trend destroys any legitimacy.
Errors normally form a symmetrical Gaussian distribution. The corrections are wildly skewed in the direction which (coincidentally no doubt) happens to be the direction which Hansen has devoted his life to proving.
On the topic of the HADCRUT data: It really needs someone with sufficient power to ask the question “why was this revised, and how is this modification justified”. They could also ask why the previous version was so obviously deficient.
In the US you can sometimes find a congress person to play pit-bull and keep on pounding at it. Are there not any MPs that could be approached to undertake this in the UK?
NucEngineer says:
July 28, 2010 at 11:56 am
Superb, simply superb!
I’m sure George would applaud, and I suspect Aldus would have approved as well.
Could we have all the Betas and Gammas now?
Perhaps they had this headline in mind. The Telegraphs top story of the momment
“Met Office report: global warming evidence is ‘unmistakable'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
“A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the “greatest evidence we have ever had” that the world is warming.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7914611/Met-Office-report-global-warming-evidence-is-unmistakable.html
How are they going to handle July since the reported ASU Sat temps (admittedly NOT adjusted) have been roughly .25-.33F lower than last year every single day this month?
R. Gates says:
“and honest highly skilled scientists are working hard to get the data correct, refine their models to take into account increasing knowledge about feedbacks”
Funny! That’s just what the tooth fairy told me!
But then she spoiled it by cracking up laughing……
“A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the “greatest evidence we have ever had” that the world is warming.”
=============================================================
You have to laugh at this, and they come out with something like it every few months.
The science is settled, that’s why we keep looking for any shred of evidence that it might be true………..
In over 50 years, they are still trying to prove it by finding examples.
What a joke.
So, what has happened since 1997 that invalidates this?:
Source: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
“Accurate “Thermometers” in Space
The State of Climate Measurement Science
October 2, 1997
Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.
Why is it important?
The question is very important, as these temperature measurements from satellites in space are one of our most important windows into measuring and understanding the phenomenon of Global Warming.
Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth’s surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many – especially the early – computer-based global climate models (GCM’s) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made “Greenhouse Effect”. Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth’s lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced. (Get the latest on the Earth’s Temperature from Space by clicking on the diagram!!)
What is the “Controversy”?
Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
How do we know the Satellite Data are Correct?
In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.”
Bill
July 28, 2010 at 9:46 am
Larry Niven and Jerry the moonbat Pournelle came close with “Fallen Angels”!
Are they adjusting for the heat index “feels like 110 degrees” when its only 90? That would at least make sense to me, as it is barely possible to find out what the actual temperature is around here. That “feels like 110 degrees” makes it sound really hot, like we are breaking records or something! Which by the way we are no where near doing.
Answering my own question: Nothing, per this 2009 report. Has any of this been subsequently proven incorrect?
“A project of CFACT
Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps
Sunday, July 05, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.
According to the latest global satellite data courtesy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and made into an easy to read graph by algorelied.com: “For the record, this month’s Al Gore / ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore’s film was released,” noted algorelied.com. (See satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of http://www.Algorelied.com – Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)
Gore — who is fond of saying the Earth has a “fever” — has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: ‘Climate has been changing for billions of years’ – Moonwalkers Defy Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’)
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the “year without a summer.” There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. (Also see: Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: ‘Earth has been cooling for ten years’ – ‘Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them’ – July 1, 2009)
In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades’ study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 – And See: ‘Global temps have flat lined since 2001…This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950…Cooling trend could last for up to 30 years’ – June 22, 2009 )
This means that today’s high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor’s Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the “pipeline” have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. ‘There is no warming in the pipeline’ )”
All a tempest in a teapot if you ask me. I’ll go with the satellite data, thank you.
When a geologist sees data manipulation like this, he instinctively thinks of ‘Black Box Scams’.
Shown below is a ‘Black Box’ check list for mining from the State of Arizona – I believe we are long overdue in needing a similar check list for climate ‘science’. If the purveyors of manipulated climate data knew they would be prosecuted for fraud, there would be a lot less of this BS.
Unfortunately, this requires the political will to do the right thing, something which is rarely present these days.
Arizona Mines and Minerals Department
Mining Scams
Adapted from Circular 59 by Michael N. Greeley
Introduction
A time-honored method to bilk the public of millions of dollars is the ubiquitous mining swindle. Since an unusually rich ore deposit, or bonanza, has historically produced enormous profits for the developer, many of us believe that we too, like the ’49er, can strike it rich. The glamour attached to “discovery” creates, in the imagination of some people, a relatively easy way to attain fantastic wealth.
Although money can be made in mining and this Department certainly encourages mining, we also have a responsibility to urge the public to exercise prudence in its investment. Too many people have lost their hard-earned savings on an ill-advised mineral scheme. Archives are full of outrageous examples of mining scams and swindles in which the only beneficiary was a glib entrepreneur with unbounded optimism. In most cases, he disappeared before his investors realized what happened.
General Considerations
When making an investment in any mineral enterprise, there are a number of factors or key features to consider. A checklist of significant considerations follows.
1. Title
2. Sampling and Assaying
3. Commodity Type
4. Mining Method
5. Mill Site
6. Recovery Process
7. Permitting and Reports
8. Security and Safety
9. Marketing
10. Profit Distribution
11. Taxes
12. Sequence of Development
13. Professional Evaluation
By comparing the DMI Arctic temperature graph with the Hansen chart, we can see that his estimate of Arctic temperature is coloured by the perception of what he expects/wants to see. Hansen’s blinkered understanding of climate is risible!
Re. the Telegraph article.
How the hell do they measure sea level rise from ships?
(good to see they have polar bears on an ice flow though)
What are these people smoking?
For the record, in my post above I had bolded the following statements from R. Gates’ amazing post:
R. Gates says:
1. perhaps more likely
2. honest highly skilled scientists
3. get the data correct
4. increasing knowledge
However the rest stands:
Really, you’ve got to do better than that. There is not one shred of evidence that any of the warmists are:
1. likely to be correct
2. honest
3. highly skilled
4. scientists
5. increasing in knowledge
6. credible
If you could provide any evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Can someone who understands the UK FOIA put in a request to yield the rationale, calculations and internal and external CRU communications relating to this adjustment (before the ludicrously short limitation period expires)?
Today (27th July) was a glorious day, lots of sunshine and very little wind. I went fishing with a friend, he’s 70+ years old, out into the English Channel, a mile or so from the South Coast of England. The sea was calm and our lunch was memorable to say the least (wine suspended at a depth of 40 feet in the English Channel is deliciously cold). At about 1430 my friend looked up for some time and then said, “Oh bugger! It’s going to be a bad ‘un.”
I asked him what perturbed him so. He pointed out the swallows and swifts flying in their small groups of five or six, towards France. “They’re a month or two early,” he said. “Means that the winter’s going to be a right swine.”
He told me that the last time he’d seen such an early flight of these birds was in 1946, when it was pointed out to him by his father, before what he called “The big freeze.”
We returned to shore at about 1700 and all the while we kept looking skyward to see more and more of the scimitar-winged birds soaring south.
What do the birds know that we are not seeing?
I’m going to buy a whole load of coal and get in lots of firewood before next winter, just in case.
My watch is wrong, it IS the 28th of July when we went fishing!
Bugger!
What will they do when winter comes and the snow piles so high everybody figures out they are being scammed. Obama won’t be denied his wealth transfer payments that he committed to at dopenhagen now will he.
Has anyone taken a look at what damage to the atmosphere all these charcoal manufacturers do to the fire situation. And then the damage that third world land clearing does? MODIS is your source, but thankfully some real scientists have put together this handy page for you to see … http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
Maybe WUWT would like to put up and updating page to draw attention to the situation.
Jim G says:
July 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) ”
Impressive, if you ask me! I am happy if I can measure within 0.2 C.
WOG says:
July 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“How the hell do they measure sea level rise from ships?”
EchoSounder? Sonar? GPS?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/earth-shown-to-be-warming-by-unmistakable-scientific-evidence-noaa-says.html
The ABC in OZ just had an interview regarding this claim. They spoke, I believe with ‘Tom Karl’. Enough said.
regards
From the CRU’s FAQs:
The only Jones et al. (2001) I can find is this The Evolution of Climate Over the Last Millennium
P. D. Jones,* T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa; which doesn’t seem to relevant.
Perhaps Jones et al (1999) is the right reference, but that is behind a paywall.
CRUTemp is rather opaque, so I can’t comment on their particular methods, but much of the adjustments of recent past temps that appear from time to time are simply due to additional GHCN station records becoming available. Countries are not always good at delivering timely CLIMAT reports, unfortunately.