By Steve Goddard
h/t to reader “Phil.” who lead me to this discovery.
In a previous article, I discussed how UAH, RSS and HadCrut show 1998 to be the hottest year, while GISS shows 2010 and 2005 to be hotter.
But it wasn’t always like that. GISS used to show 1998 as 0.64 anomaly, which is higher than their current 2005 record of 0.61.
You can see this in Hansen’s graph below, which is dated August 25, 1999
But something “interesting” has happened to 1998 since then. It was given a demotion by GISS from 0.64 to 0.57.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The video below shows the changes.
Note that not only was 1998 demoted, but also many other years since 1975 – the start of Tamino’s “modern warming period.” By demoting 1998, they are now able to show a continuous warming trend from 1975 to the present – which RSS, UAH and Had Crut do not show.
Now, here is the real kicker. The graph below appends the post 2000 portion of the current GISS graph to the August 25, 1999 GISS graph. Warming ended in 1998, just as UAH, RSS and Had Crut show.
‘
The image below superimposes Had Crut on the image above. Note that without the post-1999 gymnastics, GISS and Had Crut match quite closely, with warming ending in 1998.
Conclusion : GISS recently modified their pre-2000 historical data, and is now inconsistent with other temperature sets. GISS data now shows a steady warming from 1975-2010, which other data sets do not show. Had GISS not modified their historic data, they would still be consistent with other data sets and would not show warming post-1998. I’ll leave it to the readers to interpret further.
————————————————————————————————————-
BTW – I know that you can download some of the GISS code and data, and somebody checked it out and said that they couldn’t find any problems with it. No need to post that again.
An iota of 0.07 shaved off and voilà, you’ve got dangerous global warming.
0.07 changed in GISTemp wouldn’t change the GISTemp trend on a decades scale. So to say the trend between CRU and GISS is still the same doesn’t apply to what this post is about.
Just saying that preemptively. In case a maelstrom breaks out later I won’t have to come out of my foxhole. 😉
They are either so incredibly stupid that they assume no one has been checking on them, or they are so blindly hubristic that they believe it doesn’t matter that people have been doing so.
In either case, this shreds any remaining credibility GISS may have had.
This is a good summary of the subject, and a damning exposure of GISS’ manipulations of historical data, written last year with several references to WUWT and Climate audit.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ficecap.us%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2FUS_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf&ei=-ph6TJbvHOPQ4wbSrr2pBg&usg=AFQjCNFxIm9_DDZqugbnN-vrtDB6YhZlKA
Here is an examination of Hansen’s continual adjustment of the data:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 29, 2010 at 10:13 am
0.07 changed in GISTemp wouldn’t change the GISTemp trend on a decades scale. So to say the trend between CRU and GISS is still the same doesn’t apply to what this post is about.
AAIM: When you adjust 1998 it allows you easier to claim that temperatures are still rising even in the last decade.
K.R. Frank
An Anomaly can be misleading (shhh…. don’t tell anyone…it’s a big secret) when that is all one is shown.
But, under the hood, when the absolute temp is added back, the anomaly doesn’t look so big, bad & intimidating:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/HADcrut3gl.JPG
So I got the HADcrut3gl data from Wood for Trees.
What I did :
Copied the HADcurt3gl anomaly data (1850 to 2010) to 2 columns to plot.
To the first column I added 12.5 C to the anomaly to get the absolute temp back.
(hey, I tried to find the absolute temp, but nobody thinks of posting that any more….WUWT??)
Next, I multiplied the 2nd column by 10 to restore the Boogie Man OMG we’re all going to boil & drown effect, and plotted it all.
So, whoop, there it is. Doesn’t look so big & ugly anymore.
No need to talk about the code, nor to rework a person’s words to ascribe non-existent dark reasons for not talking about the code.
We’re just looking at the outputted results and how they were adjusted over time into saying something different, now different from other major temperature datasets. No need to go into how good truly-raw temperature records were ingested, homogenized, and excreted as those results.
rbateman says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:05 am
An Anomaly can be misleading (shhh…. don’t tell anyone…it’s a big secret) when that is all one is shown.
But, under the hood, when the absolute temp is added back, the anomaly doesn’t look so big, bad & intimidating:
===============================
Thank you for that graph!
Chris
More like “GIZZstimating, 1998”, Steve.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Hansen needs to explain these changes to history… preferably on the witness stand under penaly of perjury.
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
— George Orwell
A composite video of the alterations to the temp graph by GISS over the past decade would look line a worm wiggling on dry pavement before death ensues.
Looks like GISS had an anomoly with their anomolies!
To compensate for UHI effect, GISS does not adjust current urban temperatures downward to remove the effect of UHI, but instead it adjusts all historic temperatures downward, thus emphasizing the effect! This invalidates everything they say.
Its just another example of knowing what the answer s in advance (in this case steadily rising temperatures) and then adjusting the data to fit the required result. We shouldn’t be surprised because it isn’t science, its religion.
As I have said before; I have know idea what will happen to future temperatures, but I am sure that past temperatures will get colder.
Gavin “predicted” 2010 would be the warmest on record. Gavin is g(e)o(i)d. Well he figured if it goes in El Nino mode and with GISS adjustments… There is no better race to call than the one you already know the result of…
savethesharks says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:21 am
Thank you for that graph!
Chris
My pleasure.
Now, if we add the GISS adjustment, GISS anomaly and raw data set up, I dare say we could turn the equivalent of gold into lead.
“It’s lead, Jim. I’m a doctor, not an alchemist.”
Maybe this is simpleminded, but has anyone asked directly what were the changes, when were they made, and why?
GISS should be called the Great Institute for Stupid Scientists.
Oh good – no warming since 1998. Surely the Arctic sea ice will continue it’s 2008 and 2009 summer minimum recovery from the bad-weather summer of 2007, just as the citizen/amateur climatologist/skeptics confidently predicted.
…what will Nature say? And I’m not talking about the publication. – Anthony
Exactly.
You can’t accuse Nature of being incompetent, a charlatan, staging a hoax, revising history, or having been arrested.
GISS and other activist organizations don’t need to worry about their long term credibility, they only need it long enough to get the global control and one world government in place. Once that is done no one will dare question them.
Frank Lansner says:
August 29, 2010 at 10:58 am
AAIM: When you adjust 1998 it allows you easier to claim that temperatures are still rising even in the last decade.
K.R. Frank
I know.
What I was doing was trying to head off an argument from a couple of weeks ago. In a previous posts about James Hansen/GISS by Steven Goddard there was an argument made by a commenter that Steven Goddard was treating James Hansen unfairly (thus making WUWT look bad) by pointing out the differences between GISTemp and other sets sets over the last 12 years, i.e., 1998 to 2010. The commenter said that was too short a time period and that over the long term the trend between CRU and GISS has been the same. The shaving of the data by things like 0.07 here and there wont show up in the long term trend. They get blended in. But, as you point out, it changes the data set in the short term into continued global warming.
Here’s the CRU and GISS 1900 – 1998 trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:1998/trend
Here’s the CRU and GISS 1900 – 2010 trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2010/trend
Here’s the CRU and GISS 1998 – 2010 trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/trend
And last, CRU, GISS, RSS, and UAH 1998 – 2010
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
ImranCan says:
August 29, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Its just another example of knowing what the answer s in advance (in this case steadily rising temperatures) and then adjusting the data to fit the required result. We shouldn’t be surprised because it isn’t science, its religion.”
If the Church adjusted data as fast as GISS, they would have zero believers.