By Steve Goddard
Dr. John Christy recently wrote an excellent piece “Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful?” which highlighted how poorly Dr. Hansen’s past predictions are doing.
This post raises questions about GISS claims of record 2010 temperatures. The most recent GISS graph below shows nearly constant warming from 1965 to the present, with 2010 almost 0.1°C warmer than the actual warmest year of 1998.
HadCrut disagrees. They show temperatures flat over the past decade. and 2010 about 0.1°C cooler than the warmest year 1998.
Looking more closely, the normalised plot below shows trends from Jan 1998 to the present for GISS, HadCrut, UAH and RSS
GISS shows much more warming than anybody else during that period. Hansen claims :
The difference of +0.08°C compared with 2005, the prior warmest year, is large enough that 2010 is likely, but not certain, to be the warmest year in the GISS record.
The discrepancy with the other data sources is larger than Hansen’s claimed 0.08 record. Is it a record temperature, or is it good old fashioned bad data?
Either way, it is still far below Hansen’s projected temperatures for 2010. This is not pretty science.
Hansen made temperature forecasts which have proven too high. Now his “measured” temperature data is pushing higher than everyone else. Would you accept the other team’s coach doing double duty as the referee? In what other profession would people accept this sort of conflict of interest?
John Morrow:
If the correctness criteria is what the media is using, then data is indeed singular.
–Joe
Of course they always leave out the error bars.
A J Strata does a nice job of looking at the measurement error of these global temperature measurements.
“….The title of this graph indicates this is the CRU computed sampling (measurement) error in C for 1969. Note how large these sampling errors are. They start at 0.5°C, which is the mark where any indication of global warming is just statistical noise and not reality. Most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range, which means any attempt to claim a global increase below this threshold is mathematically false. Imagine the noise in the 1880 data! You cannot create detail (resolution) below what your sensor system can measure. CRU has proven my point already – they do not have the temperature data to detect a 0.8°C global warming trend since 1960, let alone 1880….”
Note that the 0.5°C error was mainly for USA measurements and Anthony’s Surface Station Project puts that degree of accuracy in doubt. so the noise overwhelms any real signal in any of these graphs. You might as well plot a straight line with a ruler and save the tax payer a boodle of money.
Too bad nobody ever taught significant figures to these “scientists”
As the climate funding dollars begin to dry up, either as a result of politicians being forced to clue in by their constituencies or as a result of shrinking budgets due to deficits, it’ll be interesting to watch the various alarmist groups attack each others’ credibility in order to retain their own place at the trough.
This cult of the carbon cow will fracture as all religions have.
DR says:
August 16, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“Hansen has stated breaking the law is justified to save the planet. Extrapolate from that.”
It is quite telling. The term “at all costs” comes to mind, but then I realize some place no value on integrity. So the cost, for some, would be nil.
Despite my Adobe Reader crashing just now, I am enjoying flicking through the statistical study… Very interesting.
“Reply: Gistemp was opened up a couple of years ago, likely as a result of some of McIntyre’s error catching. There are many other reason for FOI’s. ~ ctm”
Some of us would say as a direct result. But perhaps it was a case of timing……………………….nope. I think it was Steve Mac.
Reply: Without proof I needed to qualify as “likely”. ~ ctm
wien1938 says:
August 16, 2010 at 9:44 pm
“Despite my Adobe Reader crashing just now, I am enjoying flicking through the statistical study… Very interesting.”
Page 21 killed mine. To see the graphs, I had to jump there and then give Adobe the 3 finger salute. After that, just go to page 22. At least, that was my experience.
I don’t know what James Hansen’s intent is. I am not acquainted with him so I have no idea. Though I can see him at coal protests, testifying at trials for vandalism for global warming, political hearings, and once not showing up when he was to appear with John Christy. So I’m not completely in the dark about him.
But regardless of knowing intent, I can see there is something very different about his data set. And from what I have learned of him it’s abundantly clear he is not an unbiased entity in global warming, whether by good intent or bad. I’d like to think his personal bias doesn’t effect his work. I’d like to think that, but I see his data set is very different than others—so I think I have legitimate suspicions. Should I conclude his personality is not showing up in his work? If I had to sit on a jury deciding whether it is, or not, I would have some serious questions about not only that, but as to whether he is in the position at NASA he is in because of his personal bias and not just by some lucky coincidence.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Also, if something criminal is, per chance, going on in some aspect of global warming (I am not specifying James Hansen here, just in general) intent is not of much importance except when I might come to the severity of the penalty. Some people actually commit crimes in what they feel is good intent—the single mother embezzling money from work to help pay the bills, the man who lost his job and steals food for his children, etc. These are still crimes. So the idea of not prosecuting possible crimes committed in “global warming” because we don’t know the intent of the people sounds noble (for lack of a better word) but it doesn’t work in real life. If we applied the same rule to all crimes we’d be spending time in trials first of all trying to find if there was malice involved. I think the only time malice, and good, or bad, intent come into play in trial is in the sentencing phase not in whether a crime should be prosecuted or not.
jeez…
When you say regarding GISTEMP methodology: “It has been reproduced by multiple citizen scientists.”
Do you mean that anyone can take the adjusted data and create the same graph?
(Stick the raw data into their program and create the same adjusted data.)
Or do you mean that anyone can produce the adjusted data given the raw data, AND have a reasonable answer as to why (~ after 1970), temps are adjusted up, and older temps are adjusted down.
I suspect that you meant the former.
steven g.
“GISTEMP departs from HadCrut because they generate Arctic data where they have none.
They don’t “generate data” where there is none. They take the level of warming trend seen on the perimeters of the pole and estimate that the level of warming seen at the pole is neither warmer or cooler that the areas seen just south of the pole. Recent satillite reanalysis shows that the arctic has seen warming TRENDS that are greater than other portions of the globe, so their estimation is not out of line with other lines of evidence. If, 80N 60E sees .5C of warming since 1980 and if 80N, -120E also sees .5C of warming do you figure that 90,0 saw?
1. the same warming (Giss)
2. Less warming ( evidence?)
3. More warming ( latest re analysis of Sat. data)?
Gail,
you need to reread brohan 06 as does AJ Strata.
As one of the regulars at CA who badgered Gavin to release the code, I have to agree with jeez. One element of our argument was by opening the code researchers could show they had nothing to hide. Hidden motives dont matter. Hansen’s method is a bit quirky here and there, but unlike many people who blather on about it I actually read all the damn code back in 2007. Go to CA and look at the threads. I’ve also read all of the python refactor and I run the code on my machine. And I did my own version. hansen’s motives dont change the answer. I can flip a switch in my code and ALSO interpolate over the pole or not. its a choice. In the end, over long periods, the difference doesnt matter much. Cherry pick a period, you can show that up is down. ask Mann.
Can we please rise above the cheap tricks the alarmists use?
If you change the start date of your plot from 1998 to 1999, which is much closer to “the past decade”, GISS tracks almost identically to the satellites and radiosondes.
This is far less impressive when you know that they adjusted the radiosonde data to make it true. These people managed to find one “fix” to make the actual readings fit the “correct” answer: “Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming
Steven C. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante, Cathryn L. Meyer”. There are others. You are dreaming if you think the radiosonde data is unadjusted.
I also do not believe we should put our faith entirely in satellites. We have absolutely no way of calibrating them – so if they are showing drift over time, then we are being fooled. I am also struck by how the UAH had a very low temperature increase, but was persuaded to increase it. Perhaps they were right, but it does suggest strongly that the satellite readings are not easy to interpret. The people who do this make no bones about it. Even assuming the readings are correct : “Trends in the satellite data are very sensitive to the details of the method used to “construct” the data set.”
http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ametsoc.org%2Fatmospolicy%2Fdocuments%2FNovember162005CarlMears.pdf&ei=PSpqTKqGMYK-sAPrtfFE&usg=AFQjCNEwJS-dXuY6u5LBCX0ryIe0cT9QwQ&sig2=K9tQyi2RwnbZBqUFovpXwQ
All in all, the correspondence of GISS, radiosonde and satellite could easily be confirmation bias at work.
It’s a shame, because it would be nice to think the data presented was perfect.
Two things to consider:
1. When looking recent temp trends, one shall reduce Pinatubo away from data before conclusions. Here is the graph showing HadCRUT timeseries with Pinatubo reduced:
http://users.tkk.fi/kse/hadcrut3-pinatubo-quadfit.png
Used correction values are obtained from Hansen’s research:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
2. DMI data and GISTEMP have apparent divergence in the arctic. DMI regards their data as the best approximate which can be obtained with current methods. So it would be worth to make full comparisation between these datasets.
Cyclical data: Not so long ago critics of Goddard INSISTED that he use a “peak to peak” period. They were right. He is doing it that way now.
So recent temperature trends have to be calculated from 1998 to 2010. To suggest a period starting in 1999 (trough) to 2010 (crest) is not honest.
I notice the “adjusted” satellite anomalies are still being used as a measure of surface temperature. This adjustment is completely irrelevant to Hansen’s prediction. But, on the subject of predictions, this one from World climate Report (December 1998) hardly covers itself in glory. See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/search/search.htm where it says
That 1998’s extremely warm temperatures were largely confined to one calendar year makes the annual record high temperature 1998 has established quite a difficult one to break.
If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty rumors going around that we are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures.
Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period.
No reasonable offers refused
Ooops!
Good discussion here. Thanks jeez and Mosher for weighing in and making others chip in with considered replies.
Having said which, this thread makes me want to understand, in fairly layman’s terms (not just Mosh’s refs to back numbers of CA which is too much for many of us to undertake)…. just HOW can Hansen’s algorithms produce such a fantastic discrepancy of warming rate. There is SOMETHING odd which perhaps McShane and Wyner could flush out and make quite comprehensible to the rest of us 🙂 🙂 🙂
The distinction between fabrication and interpolation is essential. I think I have to fall in with Mosher and jeez. I don’t come to WUWT for propagandist self-gratification. That’s what I left RC to get away from. It would be nice to be able to point to this as a primary distinction between the two. I appreciate Steve Goddard’s efforts to highlight questionable practices, but I feel that at most we should be asking questions about questionable practices, not compounding them or replicating them. Two wrongs, and all that. In the interest of maintaining incontrovertible integrity, this is a boundary over which you should not step.
OT, to John Morrow and in defence of Christy and Goddard, “data” vs “datum”: “Data” is now accepted as an alternative to “datum”. In the past 30 years of writing and handling the stuff, I’ve come to regard both code and data as like coffee. You write code like you drink coffee. You handle data like you pour coffee. You manipulate data like you stir coffee. You query a database like you sip coffee. You don’t write a page of codes any more than you make a cup of coffees. Isn’t your database like a jar of coffee? Two databases are like two jars of coffee, each contain data like each contain coffee. What does a datum look like? What does a single code look like? Is a code an ASCII character? A function? A subroutine? A line? Isn’t a block of code like a spoonful of coffee? Isn’t a data object a cup of coffee? Just my thinkings.. sorry for the OT 🙂
Here’s a question:
Of the assumptions, adjustments, and other judgment calls made by Hansen to producing GISS, roughly what percentage push the final result towards the warmist position? I will guess it’s about 95%.
My hypothesis is that when you produce a temperature series, you need to make many assumptions, adjustments, and other judgments. It’s possible to make the vast majority of those judgments in a defensible way but which still leads to a result supporting the warmist position. The net result is a graph which is much more supportive of the warmist position than it really should be. I would guess that’s what’s happening with GISS. I haven’t studied the details so I’m just hypothesizing, but that’s what my instincts tell me is probably happening.
jeez: August 17, 2010 at 1:49 am
I don’t think everyone here understands my point of view. I want to increase the credibility of WUWT not tear it down. Shrill accusations of conflict of interest where the methods are transparent only serve to make this site an advocacy site and not a science site.
Relax and enjoy the ride. Part of WUWT’s appeal is that everyone who follows the rules will have a say on a particular topic — don’t underestimate the readers’ ability to differentiate between venting and arguing a point.
Popcorn?
Steven mosher
Don’t like 1998 as a start date? Try 1999. Or 2000. Or 2001. Or 2002. Or 2003. Or 2004.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN4pDtmB8Fo]
The reason I used 1998 (even though it shows less divergence than later years) as a start date was because it was the previous El Nino peak. Satellites amplify ENSO events relative to surface data, so it becomes essential to use El Nino to El Nino or La Nina to La Nina when comparing vs. surface data.
Please try doing a little research before launching accusations.
In July, GISS showed the region north of 80N as above normal, while DMI showed it as the coldest on record. How did GISS come to this conclusion, when they have little or no data north of 80N?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuP-yXPQZhI]
Hansen admits that GISS diverges from HadCrut since 1998, because he claims better Arctic coverage.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bNICl73DXM]
Hansen has devoted his life and staked his reputation on saving mankind from global warming.
We have seen a steady stream of upwards temperature adjustments coming out of NASA over the last decade. The Antarctic map turned from blue to red. The global temperature data has rotated upwards. GISS has diverged from HadCrut.
A sensible person would recuse himself to avoid appearance of conflict of interest.
Climate scientists should be treated the same way as everyone else.
Steven Goddard:
What is your point? During last winter months GISS showed several degrees more warming than DMI. It has also happened some other years during 2000’s. I have not found any months showing reverse, so I conclude that GISS’s trend covering 80N-90N might be quite different from DMI during 2000’s.
While methods are different, it is still statistically strange that GISS seems always show warmer.
It would seem Hansen is trying to catch up to his earlier, wild predictions.. 😉