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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Part 2
Pat,
Excellent analysis and your explanation is exceptionally clear and powerful. It’s simply so obvious what GISS has done. Hansen should be ashamed.
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.
kramer says:
May 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Reminds me of…
I was struck by this comment:
Odd, since my own view of just who will be “lauged at” is 180 degrees opposed to Mr. Lovelock’s.
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:
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.
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)
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
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
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.
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.
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?☺
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Is there any chance that the changes in the data over time correspond with changes in GISS staff?
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)
Ignore – following comments
>>
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
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*
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.
“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
>>
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
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.