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.
Layne Blanchard says:
August 29, 2010 at 8:16 am
The falsifications being made to the record are made before they’re posted. Looking back even further in time, there are versions of this graph that correctly place the 1930s as the warmest era.
_________________________________
Here is an example of Hansenization of the US temperature record.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
When you are talking tenths of a degree it is real easy to fudge… excuse me that is adjust the data.
If you obtained from GISS the data they crank through to obtain such wonderful products as their global average whatever, would you be looking at original unaltered data from GHCN, USHCN, and SCAR, or something adjusted?
You would be looking at fully adjusted data. Their algorithm ostensibly “unadjusts” it, then “readjusts” it.
(This is a baffling procedure, as GHCN and USHCN raw data is available. One wonders why NASA would not start with that.)
james Sexton.
“The algorithm you’ve described or method, if you will, isn’t exactly revolutionary. So, unless we go into detail about how GISS does it we don’t have any standing to comment on the general error built-in to this type of averaging and in-fill? That’s a load of crap. Now GISS has particular insights to algebraic equations? And only a select few may comment on this type of mathematics?”
Well lets keep it simple.
You have two temperature series.
Station 1: 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
Station2: -,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
They are 1km apart. I ask you to tell me the average for that 1 km patch of the earth
What do you figure and why? The actual problem is harder than that, but take the easy one? whats the best estimate? what do we mean by best estimate. Now make the record even patchier but like this
Station 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
Station -,0,-,-,-,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-,-,-,-,0,0,0,0,-,-,0,1,0,0,0,0,0-,-,-,-0,0,0
What then? are these the same station? two transcriptions of the same record? do we average them? only pick the long one what about the blank in the long one? do we infill it? ignore it? throw away the information. station 1 and 2 match each other perfectly where they overlap? can we use info from one to infill the other? Good question? Does it make a difference?
here is the deal. IF you take the ‘skeptic method” ( jeffId, romanM) the method that is the best, you will actually show a LARGER warming trend than GISS or CRU. Giss method is not the best. CRUs is not the best. They UNDERESTIMATE the warming. that’s the hilarious thing. Those of us who were skeptical of these methods actually end up proving that the better method shows more warming. So if people want the facts about the results of the best method, those are the facts. CRU has warts, GISS has worts and those worts UNDERESTIMATE the warming. So, what happens if GISS decide that romans method is better? Are you then going to critcize that better method?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“There is no need to know everything that is done between the animal and the package to evaluate if the sausage is good or not. Plus I fail to see how an in-depth study of how a particular sausage is made will make me think it tastes any better.”
However, if somebody claims that the sausage contains rat hair, When it in fact DOES NOT contain rat hair, then I’ll say so.
there are valid claims to make about the shortcomings of the RSM. There are valid reasons WHY one should not like its taste. RAT HAIR is not one of them. What I am trying to do is to get you guys to Focus on the BETTER arguments, on the REAL arguments. its the rat poop you should be focusing on, rather than making up crap about problems that dont exist.
Jaye
‘That’s ok though cause why should everybody be self sufficient in all aspects of a particular discipline? Why make everybody prove the theorems? Engineers don’t need that stuff they just need to know some conditions about where the function is integrable and how to compute it if it is. So, maybe everybody doesn’t need to walk the code cause I bet there will be a resource that summarizes the contents thereby relieving everybody of having to retrace every step.”
Utterly besides the point. I am saying this. If you want to say anything worthwile about GISS, if you want to ADD VALUE to the criticism of the method, then read the code. I’d like nothing better than for people to find REAL problems with the real code. What DOES NOT HELP is for people to raise issues that have already been addressed, already been studied, already been put to bed by people who did do the hard work. Next up, somebody will complain that its in fortran. or somebody will go off about rounding errors, or differences in the earth radius, or any number of TANGENTS. or somebody will argue that they change the percent of land ( another misunderstanding that came by ONLY looking at the outputs without understanding the process)
Any way you cut it, if GISS fixes the shortcoimngs of the method, the warming trend goes UP. feast on that and then tell me what you think the best reponse to bogus posts is? Cheer along while people make bad points in a losing argument? I think not.
The ACTION in this debate is about the data quality. PEROID. Not about the processing method. Thats the wrong grounds. Its the wrong grounds because the BEST METHOD shows more warming than their flawed method. GET IT!
Dont aim your gun at your foot.
From: evanmjones on August 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Might be time for me to re-read E.M. Smith’s definitive analysis of GISTemp again, although it greatly helps to have a flowchart to keep track of that meandering mess.
Offhand the reason might be because those are not their adjustments, not done the way they want to do them. So basically, they take the pre-adjusted historical records, then transmogrify them into their own version of the historical record. Which leads to the commonly-accepted principle, “You modify it, you own it.”
I will try to avoid ascribing nefarious motives for such changes, according to that thought (however worded) ‘Never ascribe to malfeasance what can be accounted for by incompetence.’ ☺
The thought police have invaded.
Re: My previous comment
“That meandering mess” refers to GISTemp, not E.M. Smith’s fine analysis, of course.
😉
Steven Mosher,
Your seemingly endless posts are off-topic. This article is about GISS demoting 1998.
Not that that makes any difference to you, because you have an agenda.
From now on, everyone must promise to only talk about things which Steven Mosher is interested in.
Hey…I haven’t ventured into a discussion about GISS adjustments. I suppose if I wanted to and had time, I’m sure I could do a code walk thru and figure out what is going on. I was just skimming the posts avoiding the most outlandish rants, trying to learn a bit, etc. My beef was the extreme condescension you displayed.
Maybe that’s to be expected. Maybe its seems like a million voices all clamoring for attention, spewing opinions like so much oil out of an uncapped BP well. Fighting the same stuff day after day…I dunno. No biggy though as long as somebody is trying to actually determine what is going on without a preconceived bias. If they bash the odd blogger with a rhetorical cudgel, maybe it gets there attention. At least it was a bit of sport in between writing page after page of an ICD today.
Jaye Bass says:
August 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Why reduce dependence on fossil fuel? Currently, it is the best energy source when trying to optimize for price and efficiency….
__________________________________________________________
We should be going toward 100% hydro/nuclear for electric generation and save the fossil fuel for transportation, plastics and other uses.
Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2010 at 3:33 pm
What part of “The algorithm you’ve described or method, if you will, isn’t exactly revolutionary.” did you not understand? Is my English that poor that you didn’t you comprehend when I said, “Steven, I understand the algorithm, I also understand why it is done in this manner.”?
Steven, you’re taking a rather simplistic view of the whole issue. The question isn’t if this is the best method or not, the question is, “Is this sufficient?”
You say, “GISS has worts and those worts UNDERESTIMATE the warming.”
It’s already been done, so I’ll just mention RSS, UAH, and HADCRUT. They must be soooo underestimating the warming that none can be close to correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
I assume you don’t need the offsets done to be able to discern the difference in trends of estimating the warming. Let me know if you need help with that.
Are the graphs at the top of this thread are a lie or an illusion? What the hell are you babbling about? GISS stated 1998 was the hottest year ever. But then they revised the year downward not once, but twice. So, this year can be the hottest year ever. They underestimate it retroactively!
Back to sufficiency. Is being wrong in a backward trend by .07 degrees sufficient over a decade period of time? Well, if the trend continues, GISS will have been off by 0.7 degrees in a century. If we’re discussing a 10 degree/century, probably not. But, that isn’t what we’re discussing, is it? We’re talking 2-3 degrees/century. Damn man!!!! If this keeps up, 1998 will be at zero with the base line still being used today! Are you going to tell me 1998 wasn’t or isn’t going to be an exceptional year if we continue to use the current baseline?
Even if we grant there isn’t any intentional mucking with the temp data(I don’t), do you believe this is sufficient in determining global temp anomaly and passing laws to mitigate the ensuing doom predicted because of the errant assumption of our current temp anomaly?
The only reason I ask is because we already have(based on 1998 as it was reported then) and we are continuing to do so(because 1998 is going down the memory hole) and will continue to do so because of people like you.
Steven, you’ve done well, now go ask JH if you and he can write a book together. I promise to buy that one.
Steven, you should do yourself a favor. Run a few of those scenarios that you’ve used today. Only quit using 1s and 0s and use temp WNL of a location and randomly input temps with some orderly temps in place and then randomly remove some to mimic missing data and then see the many different averages and trends you can come up with and then come back and tell me GISS is essentially correct.
stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 4:28 pm
“From now on, everyone must promise to only talk about things which Steven Mosher is interested in.”
lol, I promise! I wish people were half as smart as they make themselves out to be.
Re: Steven Mosher on August 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm
You are doing a remarkable job of continually missing the point.
I’m evaluating 3/4HP 120VAC TEFC motors made by four different manufacturers. Three makes have similar performance profiles, one is notably different. Moreover, I find out the performance of that one make will change depending on when it was made. The three grouping together I then consider to have the normal expected performance, the other I do not consider normal as well.
I want reliability, consistency. I don’t care how a particular motor was made, to some extent I don’t even care what it was made of. I want to know that when I need that particular motor for an application, it will do what I expect it do, reliably and consistently. Plus, I really don’t want to find out after building something with a particular make of motor, it needs to get redesigned to accommodate a maker’s ongoing changes, and I have to retrofit anything I made previously with that motor to allow for those changes.
I’m not buying GISS. Long-winded expositions on their manufacturing process won’t change that, nor will defenses against theoretical charges of substandard and/or questionable materials used in the product. Show me a track record of proven reliability and consistency, then I may consider using them.
Ok, I said I was done here but I lied.
Quoting Steven Goddard talking about Mosh:
Hmmm….Steven, earlier in this thread you wrote:
And this one:
And this one
Which I pointed out was off topic at the time quoting me (jeez);
And then you wrote this one:
Steven you are unable to maintain a logical train of thought. You consistently run off on tangents, even literally picking a single word out of someone’s previous comment and run off on a tangent with it as you have done at least three times in this thread,
You cherry pick constantly, and accuse others of this.
You run off topic constantly and you accuse others of this.
You constantly use strawmen and accuse others of this.
You constantly use ad homs and accuse others of this.
Every comment I make is either a response to a point you try to make, pointing out failings or deception in your presentation or in tangential comments. I am insulting your unscientific, illogical points and random non sequiters or pontifications, but I have never attacked you personally.
I attack your arguments, which are so flawed they are a downright embarrassment to WUWT. I consistently call out and demonstrate your failure to make logical points.
Now after all the random tripe you have spouted on this thread you have the audacity to call Mosh’s comments off topic?
He has explained in detail how and why the changes in the 1998 values occur. That is more on topic than anything you have written in this entire thread. He is also trying to explain to your supporters how this has been known for a long time and why it is not an important point, but the audience isn’t listening..
“And the answer is:
0,0,0,.5,.5,.5,.5,.5,.5.
Wow! the past changed.”
So it’s homogenizing the data. That’s worse.
Why in the hell can’t we just use THE DATA? And not some bastardized version of it that changes over time? Is that so damn hard?
Sounds good to me…
I just want to step in and point out that “wort” is a key intermediate liquid produced during the whiskey and beer brewing processes.
jeez says that Steven Mosher has “explained the 1998 shift in detail.” I must have missed that. Please repost.
In fact, I would like to see an entire article from Steven Mosher explaining why GISS is correct and HadCrut, UAH and RSS are wrong. Why 2010 is the hottest year on record, and why GISS is actually underestimating the temperature.
That will be incredibly entertaining.
More reading comprehension problems Steven?. Try reading upthread. Read ssllllooowwwllllyyyy. Maybe you will actually lllleeeaaarrrrnnnn something. I came up with a phrase a long time ago that applies perfectly here. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. If this seems condescending, it is because it does get tiresome trying to explain things to someone who simply refuses to understand no matter how many ways the point is explained.
Your framing of the question GISS as “correct” and others “wrong” is a typical pontificating logical fallacy of yours.
Steven, they are all “correct”. They process data and display results. The concept of a global temperature is subjective in definition. Differences in processing will occur even if much of the underlying data is the same. Over long periods the indexes all show similar trends. under short periods they can diverge. In some years some may be closer to the abstract ideal than others, but since we don’t know what that is, we don’t know which. Your attempt to find villainy in GISS because of a short term (shall we say “cherry-picked”) time period is beyond tiresome. It is a distraction from adult conversations which could be taking place.
There is no rigorous reason to focus on 1998 as significant to your point as 2005 is currently the record year in GISS. In the past you were criticized for improperly finding trends in oscillating or sinusoidal data and actually corrected your mistake, by measuring (I think) peak to peak. In this series of posts on GISS you have used this previous criticism completely out of context in a nonsensical manner claiming that measuring el nino to el nino is the same thing a measuring a trend in oscillating data to justify your cherry-picking of 1998 as a significant year. It is a hand waving argument without merit or justification, but it sounds logical and cool to your followers.
There are likely problems with much of the underlying data. That is the point of Anthony’s surface station project and paper. Those are interesting points.
So you can say I haven’t answered your question. What I have done is explain in detail why your question is leading and unscientific and not worth answering.
jeez says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Far be it from me to carry Goddards water, but when you said, “This post was not about GISS and its trend compared to other indexes, this post was about GISS modification of historical records. ”
I can’t help but think your view of history is similar to Moshes. I think this is the second sentence of the post. “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.” Of course, in 20 years time I could be wrong and it could be revised to the first or third or not even placed in the dialogue because our view of history is more accurate the further we get from history, obviously. History revision is a good thing!! It trains us to be more flexible in interpreting the occurrences we lived through! I never thought I’d see the day when people told me the properties of mercury don’t apply to my observations, but other people that have more insight to basic algebraic equations than myself.
Yeh, we
thoughtknew we were right then, but then we really knew we were right later, but then we really, really know we are right now and we’ll be really, really, really right later. Odd how people don’t believe we’re credible. WE SHOWED THEM THE COMPUTER PROGRAM!!!!It’s called introspective. Try it. No, you won’t like it. No one does. If you do it properly, you will understand the necessity. I’ll buy the first round.
jeez says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“He has explained in detail how and why the changes in the 1998 values occur. That is more on topic than anything you have written in this entire thread. He is also trying to explain to your supporters how this has been known for a long time and why it is not an important point, but the audience isn’t listening..”
Sis, he’s explained in detail how and why GISS was wrong on more than one occasion. I didn’t post the article, but I’ll defer to the one that did as far as pertinence. Or are you assuming to read Goddard’s thoughts now? I can’t speak for the rest of the people on this thread, but I don’t support anyone but my family. There is none here. Mosh has made statements, he’s been asked for clarification, he’s responded and I’ve made judgments towards his arguments. Unless someone shows me any different, I believe I’ve summed it up fairly well. Do you want some clarification, or do you simply disagree, or do you agree, or do you simply have a personal thing with Goddard? In which case, the latter is off topic and not relevant to any discussion I can see here, but perhaps I’m wrong and in 20 years your personal views will be relevant to someone somewhere somehow. Apparently temps are relative. Mostly to the way one feels about math and algebra.
Well, if OT stuff is allowed here, then I’ll try to post this. Actually, it is relevant as to how to start a fight! Perhaps y’all heard this.
Saturday morning I got up early, quietly dressed, made my lunch, and
slipped quietly into the garage. I hooked up the boat up to the van, and
proceeded to back out into a torrential downpour. The wind was blowing 50 mph, so I
pulled back into the garage, turned on the radio, and discovered that the
weather would be bad all day. I went back into the house, quietly
undressed, and slipped back into bed.. I cuddled up to my wife’s back, now with a
different anticipation, and whispered, “The weather out there is terrible.”
My loving wife of 5 years replied, “And, can you believe my stupid husband
is out fishing in that?”
And that’s how the fight started…
REPLY: snip – please rewrite this and feel free to resubmit when you don’t have to use vulgarity to get your point across. – Anthony
Really? What is the equation for it? How do you decide which data points to use? How do you decide to weight them? Do you make any Time of Observation change adjustments? Do you grid the data, or just average all the datapoints? What do you do if coverage is greater in one area than in another? What is the sea surface temperature of a region covered in sea ice? What do you do with station moves? What do you do with station discontinuities? How do you adjust for UHI? What if you have a single station on an Island whose temperature differs from all the water around it?
Have you looked at the Pielke’s opinions on Global Temperature indexes?
Seriously this is just Math isn’t it? So what is the equation since there are no subjective decisions to be made?
It’s funny that you think I’m an alarmist because I point out that Steven’s concerns are a distraction to real skeptical science, such as the paper Anthony is working on. I have also said in this thread that I think GISS’s constant estimation is a flawed method in my opinion, but it also doesn’t matter in the big picture. Over longer time period’s the various indexes give similar results making this whole attack on GISS methods a complete waste of time. The real issue for surface indexes is the underlying data and that is what Anthony is working on. The battle over issues with the methods is moot.
jeez,
Your long-winded obfuscations are pointless. Repost Mosher’s detailed explanation of 1998.