Pat Frank: The New Science of Climate Change

Guest post by John A.

This is a shout-out to a fascinating post by Pat Frank on Jeff Id’s blog on the mysterious changes to climate history coming from James Hansen’s GISS dataset. Here’s how Pat describes it:

I’ve just had a guest post on Jeffid’s the Air Vent, showing that between 1988 and 2010 there is a strange mutability in the trend of global air temp as produced by GISS, under Jim Hansen’s by-line.

Folks here might be interested. According to GISS, in 1988 the early 20th century warmed at about the same rate as the late 20th century. By 1999, the late 20th century warmed 2.3 times faster, increasing to 2.8 times faster by 2010.

This increase in rate wasn’t due to an accelerating late 20th century trend. It’s mostly due to modifications of the 1880-1920 record.

Do the systematic changes show an increasingly sophisticated understanding of early 20th century natural variability? A better perception, perhaps, of UHI effects or station site inhomogeneities? None of that seems likely.

Rather, it seems more likely that anthropogenic climate change has much more to do with the climate data than it does with the climate itself.

Well worth a read.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Pat Frank: The New Science of Climate Change

  1. I’ve always worried more about a catastrophic anthropogenic effect upon climate data than upon climate itself. The blame, however, lies not only upon GISS with its bizzare “homogenizations,” but upon the archive keepers at NCDC, as well. Cooling the earliest data and other unjustifiable, trend-manufacturing “adjustments” artificially reduce the coherence between neighboring station records–a grave impediment to serious analysis of variability.

  2. Based on what he has done, should Hansen be described as a “protagonist” or is there another more descriptive term? I find that alarmist is certainly less derogatory than “denier,” a term which we all know is used to associate skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

  3. Wow, just wow!
    The GISS dataset has been systematically altered so that past temperatures have been adjusted downwards during periods of warming, and upwards during periods of cooling. I can think of no scientific reason whatsoever that could possibly justify this.
    As Pat Frank points out, even though the adjustments are small, the impact is huge because it suppresses the range of (presumably) natural variability that has occurred in the past, making any changes that have happened recently, or may happen in the future appear far more significant than they probably are.
    How much of a problem can Global Warming really be if they have to resort to this kind of chicanery?

  4. Reminds me of…
    I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
    – James Lovelock, March 2010

  5. Deleting and changing historical data invites speculation that fraud is occurring. This is no different than carrying two sets of books. One for the government, the other based on reality.

  6. The consequence is that all GCM’s are now validated against cooked historical records. If i were a GCM programmer on the government dole, i would now know that my attempts at creating a realistic climate model are doomed; only cooked GCM’s will survive the validation.
    Must be a really nice place to work. But i think all honest people left that area long ago anyway.

  7. The stupid efforts of the Aust Government-just who are these people representing?
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8248531/carbon-price-backed-by-lower-house
    The Gillard government’s bid to introduce a carbon tax has been boosted with the lower house of parliament backing the idea of a carbon price.
    Labor MP Stephen Jones MP moved a motion calling on the House of Representatives to acknowledge a carbon price as an “essential step in reducing carbon pollution”.
    It also noted the efforts already under way by government and business in developing green jobs.
    Independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor and Australian Greens MP Adam Bandt, backed the motion that passed the lower house on Thursday night.
    The coalition and independent Bob Katter voted against the motion that passed 74 votes to 72.
    WA independent Tony Crook was absent from the vote, but has previously indicated he is open to supporting the carbon tax that Labor wants in place by mid 2012.
    The government needs the support of at least four crossbenchers to get the measure through the lower house of parliament.

  8. I like the designation ‘climate change scientist’.
    It’s like fighting back using captured enemy weapons.

  9. The correct title for James Hansen is “Climate Falsifier”
    His actions are equivalent to a mining promoter who salts the ore pile to dupe investors. Back in the day, that would boost sales of tar and feathers.

  10. All that GISS and other data manipulators are going to accomplish is to drive the politicians that fund the corrupt science out of office. Things run downhill, especially budget lawnmowers. I have to admit, they (climate change beaurocracies) are juicy targets of pure waste.

  11. “It’s mostly due to [downward] modifications of the 1880-1920 record.”
    I thought that “this” was the trick that became exposed by the “hacked” emails.
    Am I correct with this belief..?
    db..

  12. How many of the 80 CRN1 stations of the surface stations were extant in 1880?
    1) Calibrate each of those stations to UAH for all available UAH years.
    2) Use the calibrations to reach into the past.

  13. I submit that term “anthropogenic climate change” is commonly improperly defined, it should be defined as:
    “apparent changes in the climate due to the effects of human adjustments on the data”
    Rather than the conventional understanding that the term refers to the effects of human activities on the climate.
    It is not the weather or the climate that are changing, it is only the data and its manipulations which are changing.
    Larry

  14. Well can’t say I’m surprised . . . if they can disappeared the MWP, a simple lowering of some temperatures is easily within the capability of even these Climate Data Changing Scientists.

  15. Thats normal operation for climatology. Beat the data until it conforms with original concept.

  16. “Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’,
    I can make it up. So I have.”

    ~Harry the programmer,
    “Harry_read_me file” metadata

  17. Curiousgeorge says:
    May 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    “Sort of related: CNN Opinion. Climate change is responsible for the Mississippi flooding this year. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/kemp.mississippi.river/index.html?hpt=Sbin
    Having lived many years in St. Louis, I just love these “thousand year flood” stories. I called a local news station in 1993 to ask them if this thousand year flood resembled more the thousand year flood of 1982 or the one of 1973.
    I guess none of the news channels are commenting on how many of the flood victims live in a flood plain. Apparently, today, if a developer builds a levee, no matter how incompetently, then whatever is behind it is no longer in a flood plain. The work that the Corps of Engineers should be doing is cracking down on those who build in flood plains.

  18. @Ian George:
    I don’t understand how these two graphs can actually be on the NASA web site, yet they are. I couldn’t find the page that you accessed these pages from, did they provide any explanation why “identical” graphs are so different?
    Thanks.

  19. So, if I am reading this right, the data has been altered in a way that late 20th century warming is shown as greater than early 20th Century, but it mutes the actual warming? Well that makes perfect sense to me. It’s always been more important to the warmers to match temperatures to CO2 than it is to show actual warming trends.
    By showing a marked increase in warming in the last half of the century they get a better fit to what CO2 was doing in that time. Greater warming that mostly in the first half of the century would be incredibly inconvenient to the narrative.

  20. For the record, between March and April, UAH went UP 0.22 C, bit GISS went DOWN 0.02 C.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    Britain’s very warm April that was commented on in other threads meant nothing from a global perspective so it certainly cannot be used as proof of global warming. In the last 10 years, according to GISS, three Aprils were warmer.

  21. Polish SSR snark-adage: “The future is certain. Only the past is subject to change.”

  22. Theo Goodwin says:
    May 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Having lived many years in St. Louis, I just love these “thousand year flood” stories. I called a local news station in 1993 to ask them if this thousand year flood resembled more the thousand year flood of 1982 or the one of 1973.

    4 1000-yr floods in 40 yrs, now! There’s only one possible ‘splanation: Time Is (Anthropogenically) Disrupted! Time’s job is to keep everything from happening all at once, they say, but it’s falling down on the job. It’s probably because of Moore’s Law, or SLT.

  23. Hi Bennett:
    This is the main link to all the GISS data.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
    The opening page gives you the ”after combining sources at the same location” (‘raw’) data set.
    Click on the world map area for the station you want. The new link will give you a selection of stations in that area. Choose one to get the station you want.
    Then go back to the front page and click on “after cleaning/homogeneity adjustment” in the data set window. Go through the same procedure as above to see the data set for the GISS ‘manipulation’.
    Notice the ‘set=1’ and ‘set=2’ in the web address – this is what distinguishes them.
    Some stations have not changed but I noticed that last year a few stations that did have adjustments applied have reverted back to the original ‘raw’ data.
    Hansen did write a paper on why GISS ‘changed’ the data. Maybe there is an explanation here.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

  24. As I’ve explained many times there were many changes between 1988 and the present
    1. different stations.
    2. different datasets
    3. different adjustment
    4. different algorithm.
    nothing here to see again.

  25. Australian Temps are being tortured by our Gov,s BoM.
    [url=http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/]http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/[/url]
    James Hansen lead the way. The Man who made global warming:
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/US_NoWarming.htm%5B/url%5D
    And not to leave New Zealand out of the game this : search for the NIWA temps fraud.
    With all these DATA screw ups I feel truth in Climate Change Science-Change- Science-Climate-Science-Change——a future script for a nuthouse movie.
    Here last winter- Katoomba we had a record cold of six consecutive nightime temps below -3deg minus -6deg once.
    😉

  26. Old news, see my WUWT postings on Makiko Sato’s FOIA email to Hansen that details how 1934 was over a half degree C warmer than 1998 according to her 1999 accounting. Then, after SEVEN adjustments, with 1934 continually getting downgraded and 1998 being repeatedly propped up against its tendency to cool down, they end up in a dead heat in her 2008 accounting. The graphic analogizes their data adjustment process to a downhill slope for poor old 1934 and ski lift assist for their favorite, 1998. At the time of the analysis, the 1934 data was old enough to qualify for Social Security, but NASA GISS made it work for them :^)
    My Hansen juggling the globe WUWT posting includes a blink graphic detailing how wholesale adjustments were made to systematically cool down data from before 1970 and superheat data after 1970 to exaggerate the amount of warming by at least 0.3ºC, more than 40% of the supposed warming since 1880.
    The above wxamples are for US mean temperature anomalies. If US data, under our control, is so screwed up (according to the need to continually re-adjust it) how screwed up must the world data be? And we are forcing worldwide “environmental” laws that will continue to wreck our economies on the basis of this flawed data? Or, is the original data less corrupt than the agenda-driven analysis and re-analysis?

  27. my entry for the descriptions of the worst of the worst
    alclimatists
    climate sciostitutes.

  28. Well, I guess all this warming was due to the books being cooked!
    Hansen, what a creep. Why he still draws a paycheck from NASA is beyond me.

  29. This new term “Anthropocene” I hear bandied about should actually be changed to the “Anthroobscene” to describe a nefarious scheme to skew the data; to tilt the hockey stick; to fudge the data without conscience–such obscenely unscientific actions will mark this period as one of the darkest in earth’s history.

  30. Having lived many years in St. Louis, I just love these “thousand year flood” stories. I called a local news station in 1993 to ask them if this thousand year flood resembled more the thousand year flood of 1982 or the one of 1973.
    Nice work, Theo, very funny. I’m from St. Louis, used to visit a lot – as in all of those Summers, and still have one sister there in close communication, who is very interested in the weather, facts, logic, etc.. The Warmists really have no idea what they’re up against.

  31. As Bob Carter says at the start of a lecture.
    ‘Has there been any global warming? Well, it depends where you start measuring your temperature.’
    It also depends on the applied corrections. (and the bias of the corrector)

  32. Well done Pat Frank, and thanks John A. for bringing it to our attention. Proof that not only have the official “records” been tampered with before, but that they are still being routinely tampered with. The more of this sort of thing I see, the more firm my conclusion that – as things stand – the phrase “climate science” is an oxymoron; this is not science in any sense I recognise. Disgraceful and inexcusable.

  33. I’ve posted this link before. I was interested in Death Valley temperatures because dry places (deserts and the poles) are the “canary in the mine” for CO2 GHG effects. The 1998 yearly average for Death Valley was the third coldest when 1998 is claimed to be the highest due to GHGs. Why isn’t Death Valley much warmer in 1998? I captured the old data up to about 2003. The current published data values are not quite the same. See for yourself: http://jamesbat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dv-all.jpg. The 1998 yearly average for Death Valley is no longer the third coldest.
    Jim

  34. I have been reading about another consensus held by scientific experts in the 1940’s.
    The consensus was, that after two inferred cases of bats giving humans rabies bats needed to be exterminated in the USA.
    Hundreds of millions of bats were killed off despite there being no epidemic of bat induced rabies.
    Today the attempted extermination of bats is considered to have been misguided but that won’t repair the damage caused by that particular little bit of consensus science.

  35. Email exchanges between dissenting scientists and RealClimate scientists are always fun to read.
    Rancourt (a physicist) recently wrote a paper on radiation physics, the greenhouse effect, and the Earth’s radiation balance, arriving at the conclusion that “the predicted effect of CO2 is two orders of magnitude smaller than the effects of other parameters.” He sent the paper to the Real Climate folks for input. He now presents the email exchanges.
    He introduces the exchanges as follows:
    How do scientists operate? How do they attempt to influence each other? How do they protect their intellectual interests? Do they use intimidation? Paternalism? Do they mob challenges from outside their chosen field?
    Consider this example from the area of climate science, involving some of the top establishment scientists in the field…
    Peer criticism — Revised version of Rancourt radiation physics paper.
    1. Rancourt writes original version of article, HERE.
    2. Asks for and receives peer criticism, HERE.
    3. Rancourt writes significantly revised version of article, HERE.
    4. Asks for and receives further peer criticism about revised version, PRESENT POST.
    5. It appears that Rancourt’s revised paper is correct: The predicted effect of CO2 is two orders of magnitude smaller than the effects of other parameters.
    Following the posting of THIS significantly revised version of Denis Rancourt’s paper about Earth’s radiation balance, Rancourt asked the climate scientists at RealClimate for follow-up criticism — resulting in this email exchange:
    http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/peer-criticism-revised-version-of.html

  36. 2 videos that show the change in GISS compared to other data sets. The change is clearest starting around 1998.
    Part 1

  37. Pat,
    Excellent analysis and your explanation is exceptionally clear and powerful. It’s simply so obvious what GISS has done. Hansen should be ashamed.

  38. Are you seriously trying to disconnect the climate data from the climate? Measurements and observations performed by actual climate scientists (not economists and geographers) yield the conclusion that the climate is changing. This is the point of observing and measuring. It’s not natural variability either. This argument has been thoroughly debunked by every serious working scientist, and thousands of intelligent others. Yes, I’m aware that there are a few well-known critics of this assertion who make their contrarian claims without reference to the same measurements and observations referred to above. Their arguments have also been thoroughly debunked.

  39. kramer says:
    May 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm
    Reminds me of…

    I was struck by this comment:

    On the blogosphere’s reaction to the various revelations over the past few months:
    I think the sceptic bloggers should worry. It’s almost certain that you can’t put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening. This is going to resolve itself and global heating is going to come back on stream and it’s these bloggers who are going to be made to look weird when it does. When something like this happens again, they’ll say we had all this before with ‘Climategate’. But there’s a danger that you can go off too strong, like they have. They are not sufficiently aware of the longer-term consequences. I think the sceptics have done us a good service because they’ve made us look at all this a lot more closely and hopefully the science will improve as a result. But everything has a price and an unexpected price may hit these bloggers. It’s the cry-wolf phenomenon. When the real one comes along, they’ll be laughed at.

    Odd, since my own view of just who will be “lauged at” is 180 degrees opposed to Mr. Lovelock’s.

  40. Hugh Pepper says:
    “Measurements and observations performed by actual climate scientists (not economists and geographers) yield the conclusion that the climate is changing.”
    The discredited Michael Mann tried to assert that the climate didn’t change until the industrial revolution [see the shaft of his totally debunked hokey stick chart]. But scientific skeptics have always known that the climate constantly changes, despite the IPCC wrecking their credibility by siding with Mann. Really, Hugh, did you think you could get away with such a false claim here? Next, you say:
    “It’s not natural variability either. This argument has been thoroughly debunked by every serious working scientist, and thousands of intelligent others. Yes, I’m aware that there are a few well-known critics of this assertion who make their contrarian claims without reference to the same measurements and observations referred to above. Their arguments have also been thoroughly debunked.”
    As usual, there is not one citation in your preposterous statement. You clearly have no understanding of either the scientific method or of the null hypothesis, both of which require skepticism. You parrot the outrageously false claims of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe without a shred of evidence, relying instead on your appeal to vague authorities to support your credulous belief system.
    For your information and edification, over thirty thousand scientists [all with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s] have co-signed the following statement:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    Your belief system is truly bizarre, Hugh, and I understand that none of these easily verified corrections to your false claims will ever convince you otherwise. In fact, nothing can convince you otherwise; the planet could descend into the next great Ice Age, and you would still be expecting runaway global warming – just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have repeatedly expected the end of the world on specific dates, which are later updated when the world didn’t end as predicted. But for those still trying to sift grains of truth from worthless CAGW chaff, it is helpful to show the contrast between the two sides. Thanks for providing that contrast.

  41. Hugh Pepper writes,
    “Measurements and observations performed by actual climate scientists (not economists and geographers) yield the conclusion that the climate is changing.”
    Good point that bears repeating. It’s not just one set of observations or a handful of researchers, but thousands of different scientists looking at the evidence in their fields.
    Regarding just the field of global temperature indexes, given the huge differences in approach these yield fairly consistent results. The trends from 1979 (starting point for the two satellite-based indexes) to most recent month are below. Confidence intervals overlap.
    UAH +.14C/decade (.12-.16)
    RSS +.14C/decade (.13-.16)
    GISS +.17C/decade (.15-.18)
    NCDC +.16C/decade (.15-.17)

  42. Hugh Pepper:
    Please read Smokey’s reply carefully. If you are capable of understanding his reply, then you are capable to discuss these topics here. If not, please move your comments to a “kiddie” blog, more conducive to your level, of understanding. Blind, unsupported statements do not further your agenda, nor aid the rest of us… in our search for truth. GK

  43. Another Ian says:
    May 14, 2011 at 2:40 pm
    This is known as “GISStification”
    It must be related to the “Callendar Effect” as in the science of “Cherry Picking”
    http://www.akdart.com/images/global-warming0514.gif
    http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/shoup011210-2.jpg
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cherrypicking.jpg
    An interesting article from January 13, 2010
    “”Agenda-ism and Fraud; the Sordid Tale of Climate ‘Science’””
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18930

  44. Gneiss says:
    “The trends from 1979 (starting point for the two satellite-based indexes) to most recent month are below. Confidence intervals overlap.
    UAH +.14C/decade (.12-.16)
    RSS +.14C/decade (.13-.16)
    GISS +.17C/decade (.15-.18)
    NCDC +.16C/decade (.15-.17)”
    Yes? And so what? You do not provide a shred of evidence that the current very mild warming cycle is anything other than natural variability. Why? Because there is no such evidence.
    It is, of course, entirely possible that a fraction of the current cycle is due to AGW. But again, so what? There is also no evidence that CO2 causes any global damage, despite a ≈40% rise. And now we’re supposed to be worried about a 0.7°C rise in temperature over a century and a half, most of which is probably just natural variability?
    The original argument was that we faced runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. That claim has been falsified by the planet itself, so now the alarmist crowd backs and fills, pointing at a few tenths of a degree warming cycle, saying, “Look over there!”
    No, we will look at the original claim that started all this nonsense. That CAGW claim has been debunked, and the current resuscitation attempts are intended to keep the grant gravy train on track, and the belief systems of the wild-eyed CAGW believers intact. Sorry, but you’ve lost the original argument, and all you’re doing now is arm-waving.

  45. Please spare me the snarkey tone Smokey. The evidence for warming abounds. There are literally books full, all summarized neatly for the nonscientific types and others who are more attuned to the technical language. This is not a matter of belief. Rather it is a question that can be settled by objective study, which you can do yourself, or by proxy, leaving the research to others more expert in this process. But do not be fooled by those who simply dismiss properly conducted research out-of-hand for ideological, philosophical or other reasons. The facts will lead us wherever they may and a consensus may be considered real when the discussion stops. Sorry Smokey, the discussion regarding anthropogenically caused warming is settled. The discussion has stopped.

  46. Hugh Pepper,
    I refer you to G Karst above.
    BOHICA: You have once again posted nothing but uninformed opinion. No citations, no graphs, nothing. Then you have the impotent arrogance to respond to my links and citations with: “Sorry Smokey, the discussion regarding anthropogenically caused warming is settled. The discussion has stopped.”
    So, Hugh, has the discussion stopped?☺

  47. I hope NASA arn’t building rockets like they build temperature data sets.
    The engineers in NASA would have a blue fit if they ever saw stuff like this.

  48. Steven, Steven, from 1987 through 1996, Hansen and GISS used the Monthly Climatic Data of the World (MCDW) data set, and used the same processing methods described in Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987. In 1996, Hansen, et al., discuss SSTs but didn’t include them in their 1880-1995 anomaly data set.
    In 1999, Hansen, et al., combined GHCN data with MCDW data into a single set, but used the same data cleaning and processing methods as before.
    The 1988, 1996, and 1999 data sets I show there are all restricted to land-surface station data. So, all of the differences between the 1988, 1996, and 1999 data sets are real. Whatever choices GISS & co made to combine the various stations ineluctably resulted in steepening the difference between the 1880-1940 warming and the 1960-1988 (-1996) (-1999) warming.
    In the same 1999 paper, however, Hansen reported combining SST data into his land-station data set. He discussed the differences between the GISS SST+land and GISS land-only trends.
    Hansen plotted his land+SST data only as 5-year means, rather than annual means, and so in digitizing the published data sets I didn’t want to bother with those.
    However, to follow up in detail, tonight I digitized the land+SST plot (Plate 3b) from GISS 1999, and lo-and-behold, the difference between the 1999 land-only anomalies and the 1999 land+sea anomalies shows the same residual periodicity as the 2010 minus 1999(land-only) anomalies shown by the blue difference line (and cosine fit) in my Figure 3.
    After 1999, GISS included SSTs in their global data set, and also switched to using the GHCN land surface station data. So, it seems that the residual periodicity entered the data set with the SSTs. This looks to be a clear signature of air temperature oscillations arising from the net thermal phase changes in the world ocean.
    It’s interesting that Plate A1b in the Appendix of the GISS 1999 paper showed the [CRU 1999] minus [GISS (land-only) 1999] difference anomalies.
    CRU had included SSTs in their global data and the (CRU 1999 minus GISS(land) 1999) difference showed the same residual periodicity as I show in Figure 3 for GISS 2010 minus GISS 1999. But this periodicity between the data sets is passed over in silence by Hansen, et al., 1999.
    After all that, I now understand something more about the time-wise changes in the GISS global air anomaly data sets.
    It remains true that every shift in methodology of station choice between 1988 and 2010 ended up making the late 20th century warming appear ever larger than the early 20th century warming. That was the original message of my post, and there is no reason to change it.
    Some other interesting things came out of this extended examination of published global temperature trends, which might be the subject of another post (Jeff willing).

  49. Ira, I was aware of your blink diagram for US temps and had included it in an email conversation I was having about global temps with a German physicist. When I refamiliarized myself with your analysis for that email, it became part of my inspiration to digitize all those published global data sets to see what sort of differences, if any, showed up. As it turned out, there were some. 🙂
    The time-wise relatively increased trend in US anomalies that you found coming from later GISS compilations certainly matches the time-wise relatively increased trend in global anomalies that I found also coming from later GISS compilations.
    Whatever the source of the change in trends between 1988 and 2010, the outcome certainly benefited the AGW narrative.

  50. Jim Masterson says:
    May 15, 2011 at 5:23 am
    That was a good post Jim. Death Valley is apparently a microcosm of the US and global modifications.
    This Pat Frank post should be remembered. I have yet to see a credible defense of these modifications.

  51. Re steven mosher says:
    May 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    As I’ve explained many times there were many changes between 1988 and the present
    1. different stations.
    2. different datasets
    3. different adjustment
    4. different algorithm.
    nothing here to see again.”
    Really Mr Mosher, nothing to see? The four differences you mention were all made by humans. Hansen has a KNOWN agenda. The four differences all had ONE effect. They steepened the late 20th century warming relative to the past warming, thus artificially making the case for CO2 stronger. The ONE effect of a complicated series of changes to the past all HAPPENED to fit the KNOWN agenda.
    Let us make it simple Mr Mosher. Please explain just the Death Valley changes Jim Masterson says: at May 15, 2011 at 5:23 am.

  52. Is there any chance that the changes in the data over time correspond with changes in GISS staff?

  53. Reference Smokey and Karst; When I say “the discussion has stopped”, I am referring to the question of warming and man’s role in this phenomenon. The climate scientists from around the world have researched this matter thoroughly and there is absolutely no doubt as to the warming changes which have occurred. The supportive data is available, but the fact that respected journals, Academies of Science from every industrial country, legions of scientists (97% according to Orestes et al), political leaders and a majority of others are now convinced, leads to the conclusion that the matter is settled. The climate is changing and our task is to adapt. The sooner we get on with this vital task, the better. (see the Stern report)

  54. >>
    David says:
    May 16, 2011 at 2:24 am
    That was a good post Jim. Death Valley is apparently a microcosm of the US and global modifications.
    <<
    Thanks David. I probably should have included the linear trend line equations for both data sets. The pre-2003 trend line has the formula of y = 0.0129x – 1.2221, and the current data trend line formula is y = 0.0192x – 13.686. The slope is definitely steeper for the current data.
    Jim

  55. High Pepper,
    See my comment at May 15, 2011 at 9:28 am above. The self-serving ‘authorities’ you appeal to have been debunked repeatedly on WUWT, and anyone who believes your 97% “consensus” number is a credulous know-nothing. You couldn’t get 97% of scientists to agree that the Pope is Catholic.
    Why don’t you post some evidence showing that the [mostly natural] climate variability is caused by human CO2 emissions? I’ll tell you why: because there is no such evidence. There are computer models, and the “carbon” litrutchur, but neither are evidence.
    You emit baseless personal opinions like epistles, and they’re always the same alarmist talking points. That doesn’t pass muster here on the internet’s “Best Science” site, where the scientific method rules. If you can’t show empirically and measurably that something exists, then the default position is the null hypothesis: your CAGW fantasies only exist in the mind of Hugh Pepper. That doesn’t make them real. Only evidence would show that CAGW is real – and there isn’t any evidence!
    *Sheesh*

  56. You’re a true believer Smokey. All the evidence in the world wouldn’t change your mind. But, if I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong. I think you really need to get out of the denier bubble, do some objective reading, and find a way to open your mind to the truth which abounds outside you closed world.

  57. “All the evidence in the world wouldn’t change your mind.”
    Ah… the Warmer’s Ace-In-The-Hole.
    Just claim a bad attitude on your opponents part… then not only do you not have to produce all the evidence, you don’t have to produce any of the evidence. And then don’t produce it. lol
    Andrew

  58. >>
    Hugh Pepper says:
    May 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm
    You’re a true believer Smokey. All the evidence in the world wouldn’t change your mind. But, if I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong. I think you really need to get out of the denier bubble, do some objective reading, and find a way to open your mind to the truth which abounds outside you closed world.
    <<
    (It’s interesting that you managed to sneak in the “D-word”–or a version of the “D-word.”) Your whole statement reeks of projection. Projection is where someone who is doing “X,” then accuses his adversary of doing “X.” The “true believer” here is you. We’ve still not seen any supporting evidence of your position other than the usual repetitious, unsupported statements of the AGW faithful. Smokey can speak for himself (and he often does); however, he has provided supporting evidence for his position.
    Jim

  59. Hugh Pepper,
    It’s like this: you could be convinced that there is a carbon belching monster living under your bed. But to convince anyone else that your carbon monster is anything other than your fantasy, you would have to produce convincing evidence.
    We all know why you cannot post any evidence showing that the very gentle rise in temperature over the past century and a half is due to CO2, rather than a natural temperature oscillation above and below the gradually rising trend line going back to the LIA: because there isn’t any evidence!
    I’m not arguing that you can’t have your beliefs. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a right to their beliefs, too. But when you state that you know the “truth”, you need to provide evidence. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site – not the Best Religion site [you can go to Pharyngula to argue religion and faith]. Here, you need to provide evidence.
    And keep in mind that evidence does not consist of circularly pal-reviewed papers, or radiative physics, or computer climate models. Evidence is real world observational data; it must be testable and measurable, and where there have been ‘adjustments’ to the data there must be an unbroken chain of custody traceable back to the original raw data. The Vostok and GISP-2 ice cores and the CET records are good examples of empirical evidence.
    I challenge you to post testable, measurable evidence specifically quantifying the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that results in a given increase in global temperature – if you can. Anything else is bluster.

  60. I challenge you to post testable, measurable evidence specifically quantifying the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that results in a given increase in global temperature
    Smokey, I may have something fun for you at tAV pretty soon, Jeff willing. 🙂

Comments are closed.