NASA's James Hansen's big cherry pick

From NASA:  Research Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to Global Warming

A new statistical analysis by NASA scientists has found that Earth’s land areas have become much more likely to experience an extreme summer heat wave than they were in the middle of the 20th century. The research was published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Earth’s Northern Hemisphere over the past 30 years has seen more “hot” (orange), “very hot” (red) and “extremely hot” (brown) summers, compared to a base period defined in this study from 1951 to 1980. This visualization shows how the area experiencing “extremely hot” summers grows from nearly nonexistent during the base period to cover 12 percent of land in the Northern Hemisphere by 2011. Watch for the 2010 heat waves in Texas, Oklahoma and Mexico, or the 2011 heat waves the Middle East, Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

› Download hi-res visualization

Anthony comments on the  NASA animation by Dr. James Hansen of surface temperature trends from 1955-1999:  

There are many issues with this presentation. It seems to be a big Cherry Picking exercise.

1. Note all of the missing southern hemisphere data.  There are operating weather stations during his time, but they are excluded from the analysis. Why?

2. The period chosen, 1955-1999 (in the bell curve animation) leaves out the warmer 1930’s and the cooler 2000’s. Why?

3. The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out (of the bell curve animation) biases the presentation.

4. The period chosen exhibits significant postwar growth, urbanization is not considered.

5. As for severe weather, Hansen ignores the fact that neither tornadoes nor hurricanes have shown any increase recently. Only smaller tornadoes show an increase, due to reporting bias thanks to easily affordable and accessible technology.  NOAA’s SPC  reports that July 2012 seems to be at a record low for tornadoes.

6. My latest results in Watts et al 2012 suggest surface station data may be biased warmer over the last 30 years.

The statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming, according to lead author James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

“This summer people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts,” Hansen says. “We’re asserting that this is causally connected to global warming, and in this paper we present the scientific evidence for that.”

Hansen and colleagues analyzed mean summer temperatures since 1951 and showed that the odds have increased in recent decades for what they define as “hot,” “very hot” and “extremely hot” summers.

The researchers detailed how “extremely hot” summers are becoming far more routine. “Extremely hot” is defined as a mean summer temperature experienced by less than one percent of Earth’s land area between 1951 and 1980, the base period for this study. But since 2006, about 10 percent of land area across the Northern Hemisphere has experienced these temperatures each summer.

James Hansen and colleagues use the bell curve to show the growing frequency of extreme summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, compared to the 1951 to 1980 base period. The mean temperature for the base period is centered at the top of the green curve, while hotter than normal temperatures (red) are plotted to theright and colder than normal (blue) to the left. By 1981, the curve begins to shift noticeably to the right, showing how hotter summers are the new normal. The curve also widens, due to more frequent hot events. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

› Download hi-res visualization

Comments from Anthony:

This bell curve proves nothing, as it has the same problems with data as the surface temperature visualization above: cherry picking period, missing data, and contradictory severe weather statistics. This is nothing but a political ploy from a man who has abandoned any pretext of professionally  done science in favor of activism. However, in spite of this, it will be used as “proof” by non-thinking individuals like Bill McKibben to promote a political end. Prepare for a barrage of such stories trying to link any observed weather aberration to climate. They’ll use the same level of fact checking like we saw with the melting street lamps last week.

In 1988, Hansen first asserted that global warming would reach a point in the coming decades when the connection to extreme events would become more apparent. While some warming should coincide with a noticeable boost in extreme events, the natural variability in climate and weather can be so large as to disguise the trend.

To distinguish the trend from natural variability, Hansen and colleagues turned to statistics. In this study, the GISS team including Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy did not focus on the causes of temperature change. Instead the researchers analyzed surface temperature data to establish the growing frequency of extreme heat events in the past 30 years, a period in which the temperature data show an overall warming trend.

NASA climatologists have long collected data on global temperature anomalies, which describe how much warming or cooling regions of the world have experienced when compared with the 1951 to 1980 base period. In this study, the researchers employ a bell curve to illustrate how those anomalies are changing.

A bell curve is a tool frequently used by statisticians and society. School teachers who grade “on the curve” use a bell curve to designate the mean score as a C, the top of the bell. The curve falls off equally to both sides, showing that fewer students receive B and D grades and even fewer receive A and F grades.

Hansen and colleagues found that a bell curve was a good fit to summertime temperature anomalies for the base period of relatively stable climate from 1951 to 1980. Mean temperature is centered at the top of the bell curve. Decreasing in frequency to the left of center are “cold,” “very cold” and “extremely cold” events. Decreasing in frequency to the right of center are “hot,” “very hot” and “extremely hot” events.

Plotting bell curves for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the team noticed the entire curve shifted to the right, meaning that more hot events are the new normal. The curve also flattened and widened, indicating a wider range of variability. Specifically, an average of 75 percent of land area across Earth experienced summers in the “hot” category during the past decade, compared to only 33 percent during the 1951 to 1980 base period. Widening of the curve also led to the designation of the new category of outlier events labeled “extremely hot,” which were almost nonexistent in the base period.

Hansen says this summer is shaping up to fall into the new extreme category. “Such anomalies were infrequent in the climate prior to the warming of the past 30 years, so statistics let us say with a high degree of confidence that we would not have had such an extreme anomaly this summer in the absence of global warming,” he says.

Other regions around the world also have felt the heat of global warming, according to the study. Global maps of temperature anomalies show that heat waves in Texas, Oklahoma and Mexico in 2011, and in the Middle East, Western Asia and Eastern Europe in 2010 fall into the new “extremely hot” category.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
189 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Miller
August 6, 2012 1:30 pm

I wonder why when engineers plan a construction project, they usually allow for a 100, 200, or even 500 year event?
Answer: Because very occasional weather events happen, have happened and will continue to happen.
Also, Hansen’s data obviously used the ‘homogenised’ figures for which GISS is now so famous. Doubtless the original raw data was no way scary enough.

John West
August 6, 2012 1:33 pm

Ridicule is the answer to nonsense. This is why WUWT is as popular as it is.
Expose the shortcomings (like cherry-picking and lies of omission) and ridicule the perpetrator.
i.e.: Any REAL climatologist would know the 30’s had more heat waves. (see Christy)
I just wish the message could be taken to a broader audience, like the buzz the hide the decline video got; for Hansen something like a hide the cycle video or a I’ll break the law for the cause so imagine what I’ll do to the data video.

tckev
August 6, 2012 1:38 pm

Unprecedented, Mr Hansen. Unprecedented.
GISS – Gloriously Inept Statistical Sh_t.

JJ
August 6, 2012 1:46 pm

JamesS says:
Now I don’t mean to get that particular kerfuffle started in here; however I find it highly significant that climate science has reached the point of using probability as evidence.

Not surprising. The whole CAGW playbook is stolen from medieval theocrats, and this paper is a fine example:
1) Pick a cyclic natural phenomenon.
2) Fiddle with the knowledge base to exaggerate the appearance of the cycle.
3) Draw comparison between the current peak and the most recent trough, highlighting bad effects only.
4) Blame the peak on your political opponents.
5) Demand power to appease the god(s).
Blame crop failures on witches or on people who use fossil fuel. Both are excellent ways to get a crowd of pitchfork weilding followers to raise you up, blame themselves for the world’s ills, and sacrifice their neighbors in atonement.

August 6, 2012 1:46 pm

There is an old saying….Statistics don’t lie but liars can do statitstics. Case in point!

Theo Goodwin
August 6, 2012 1:51 pm

Pat Frank says:
August 6, 2012 at 10:58 am
“Jim Hansen is assuming that 1951-1980 defines the full range of natural climate variability. That’s the same mistaken assumption he used in 1988 to assert his 99% certainty that human-caused global warming was already apparent.”
Very well said. Your emphasis is important. Write an article on Hansen’s theory of natural variability.

Theo Goodwin
August 6, 2012 1:53 pm

Phil Clarke says:
August 6, 2012 at 11:30 am
The period chosen, 1955-1999 leaves out the warmer 1930′s and the cooler 2000′s. Why?
The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out biases the presentation.
“Well, it might help if you actually watched the animation. It shows 1955, 1965, 1975 and then 1985-2011. The 1930s were warmer in the US, not the whole NH, and the 2000′s were by no stretch of the imagination ‘cooler’.”
You did not address the question asked.

Peter
August 6, 2012 1:59 pm

I’ve been noticing a trend on the site in general to promote the idea that AGW is a dying meme. I really recommend that frequent readers and posters pay a visit to the Huffington Post
Check out any topic dealing with GW, the comments are usually in the thousands per post, and the vast majority of them at the moment consist on congratulating themselves for being so clever, and chiding the right wing loonies for being so stupid as to doubt GW. Now I can only seem to access the Canadian version of the Huff, but I assume the American version is the same.
It is a real wake up call to check out the other side and see not a shred of doubt. Also a bit disheartening to see next to no posters making intelligent arguments for the skeptical side. Allmost without question they are trolls that would get banned from posting here.
Maybe that is on purpose and the thoughtful and considered posters are getting deleted?
What ever the case may be it is certainly an eye opener to be confronted with so much concentrated certainty.

August 6, 2012 2:16 pm

Peter, while I tend to agree with the general public perception, the fact is that things are not going the way the alarmist crowd would like. They are steadily losing adherents, as people start to realize that you can only say “The sky is falling!” for so long before they realize it was just an acorn hitting Chicken Little on the head.

ibbo
August 6, 2012 2:18 pm

I still don’t get why an arbitrary time point is used in climate science. What makes 1951-1980 average so important. Why not use 1900 to 2010 ? Or 1980 to 2010 ? Why use a thirty year average ? Why not ten ?
The use of comparison to an average is also really irritating.
The mathematical construct of an average by definition means you will always gets temps above and below it.

August 6, 2012 2:21 pm

Marketing opportunism at it’s barest and most shameful.
Mr Hansen should be selling us Icecream and suntan lotion at the same time.

Mark Stewart
August 6, 2012 2:24 pm

I think I understand the implications of the chosen baseline period. I wonder what would the bell curve of a period prior to the base period (like 1930-1960) look like? Would that bell curve shift to the right of the baseline period and therefore be due to global warming because it has a “…likelihood in the absence of global warming that is exceedingly small”?

Coach Springer
August 6, 2012 2:39 pm

Need a demonstrative and succinct explication of how Hansen – an avowed activitist and on record saying the message needs to hit harder and then hitting harder – gets a relationship to climate in contrast to other climate scientists of both camps and meterologists.. Pretty sure the clues are in the noted cherry-picked base period, selective recent measurements and invalid inferred assumptions about those measurements. Still the differences between Hansen’s analysis and others’ would be instructive, probably helpful in identifying all the biases and persuasve.
Still within natural cyclical variability ? Cause? Reasons for expectations of continuation of the claimed weather trend contained within this study? (I’d say the study with a base of 1951 to 1980 is the only relevant data in the analysis and demonstrates that climate and weather both shift inexplicably). The guy is less than subtly stating that small warming produces weather that is extreme and that will get more extreme and for an ever increasing area of the globe. That’s a lot of concluding contrary to reality based on fitted data.

Gene Selkov
August 6, 2012 2:43 pm

JamesS says:
August 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm
> I find it highly significant that climate science has reached the point of using probability as evidence.
The same criticism can be levelled at most of modern physics, 1920s and onwards.

August 6, 2012 2:43 pm

I forgot to mention, the increase in the summer temperature anomalies is only in the northern hemisphere ex-tropics. Not only are greenhouses gases not the cause, the cause isn’t a global effect. Likeliest cause is decreased anthropogenic aerosols.

Rud Istvan
August 6, 2012 2:46 pm

Independent of the merits here, a bit of ‘war tested’ advice. Pick you battles, and win them. You cannot win every battle/skirmish. Stop trying, since your opponents use your own ‘weak’ forays against you. I have little skin in, since have published one book with another coming showing that ‘we are barking up the wrong tree’. But to the extent you all are right, get the strategy and tactics right in order to win world opinion.

Ian W
August 6, 2012 2:53 pm

Phil Clarke says:
August 6, 2012 at 11:30 am
The period chosen, 1955-1999 leaves out the warmer 1930′s and the cooler 2000′s. Why?
The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out biases the presentation.
Well, it might help if you actually watched the animation. It shows 1955, 1965, 1975 and then 1985-2011. The 1930s were warmer in the US, not the whole NH, and the 2000′s were by no stretch of the imagination ‘cooler’.

Phil
Have you compared the temperatures back to the start of the Holocene? We are currently in a cold period with a continual trend down from the Holocene optimum. There are many periods where temperatures rose and fell far more sharply than they have done in the last 100 years – before anyone was pumping an extra 2 – 3% CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet you feel there should be alarm about the current period to the extent that it becomes THE threat above all others that mankind should face? More than famine, more than disease, more than poverty that are actually killing huge numbers of people NOW. Yet a completely unexceptional variance in climate that is still far cooler than the current interglacial average is cause for concern? Why?

Curiousgeorge
August 6, 2012 2:54 pm

Why does anyone even bother discussing Hansen, et al anymore? He’s yesterday’s freak show. C’mon folks, find something to talk about that’s more interesting than beating this dead horse. The header for this site is far more inclusive than just the latest bullshit from the likes of Hansen. It’s getting really boring.

Peter Hannan
August 6, 2012 2:59 pm

The article is J Hansen et al. Perception of climate change, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html ; I haven’t had time to read it all yet, but they do mention that winter figures are available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/30/1205276109.full.pdf+html , not included for space reasons.

GeoLurking
August 6, 2012 3:09 pm

“The curve also flattened and widened, indicating a wider range of variability.”
Well, then I guess things are settling down to a nice steady state in England.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2gw9en8.png
Upper and lower bounds are 2 SD from the mean for the accompanying trace. (approx 95% of the points)

Editor
August 6, 2012 3:13 pm

For those who have commented about UK heatwaves, the last decade has seen less heatwaves than the 1930’s and 1940’s.
Interestingly the 1950’s and 1960’s were way below average.Same old story it seems.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/uk-temperature-trends/#more-1408

Peter Hannan
August 6, 2012 3:19 pm

Sorry, the site address quoted in the paper is: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
PerceptionsAndDice/ , but the address given above is where the link took me. At a quick glance the two sites appear to be the same. The data is GISS version 2 (GHCNv2).

jorgekafkazar
August 6, 2012 3:40 pm

Phil Clarke says: “…according to Richard Muller…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, Phil, you crack me up!

Phil Clarke
August 6, 2012 4:08 pm

Theo: The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out biases the presentation.
Theo … try actually watching the thing. It runs through to 2011. The commentary is flat wrong. FAIL.
REPLY: Look at the bell curve

AndyG55
August 6, 2012 4:16 pm

A wonder how many of the CAGW bletheren realise that the REAL DANGER comes if they are wrong, and people like Easterbrook are right.
A drop into a cold period, with the current world wide state of energy supply systems, crushed by the alternative energy agenda, will have devastating consequences.
CO2 is GOOD… Warmer is GOOD… Colder is VERY BAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!