From Tallblokes Talkshop, note what happens before 1958.
HOW GISS MANUFACTURES WARMING (LOTS OF IT) IN THE ANTARCTIC
by Roger Andrews
The close match between GISS and me after 1955 is encouraging in that it shows that there’s at least one corner of the Earth where GISS hasn’t seriously mutilated the raw data. But GISS bumps Antarctic warming up from little or none since 1955 to two full degrees since 1900 by extending the Antarctic record back to 1904. Here’s where GISS gets the pre-1955 temperatures from:
The 1945-55 temperatures come entirely from stations on and around the Antarctic Peninsula that show much more warming than the mainland stations over the period of common record after 1955, and the 1904-44 temperatures come from a single station – Base Orcadas in the South Orkneys northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula.
Projecting temperatures from the Antarctic Peninsula over the entire the entire 64-90S latitude zone, which covers an area of 25 million square kilometers, is bad enough, and projecting temperatures from a single record like Base Orcadas over a zone this large is even worse. But it gets worse yet. The map below shows where Base Orcadas is. At 60 degrees 44 minutes south latitude IT ISN’T EVEN IN the 64-90S latitude zone. It’s in the next GISS latitude zone up – the 44-64S zone.
It’s hard to see how data manipulation in the service of global warming could get much more creative than that.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would have tought Orcadas would give a warmer past series, thus messing up their upward trend.
Wait – let me guess – they work some kind of adjustment on the data to add value & reduce it a lot?
I see the vertical axis is “Temperature Anomaly”, what’s the real temperature? Surely Base Orcadas will be much warmer, being surrounded by sea.
Look, it’s obvious that it’s getting warmer … deniers can’t seem to assimilate this fact. If 64S is 25 million square Km, then what the hell is the area covered by ~60deg 44 min? This must logically be much, MUCH warmer
This is clearly fraud, writ large. Who is responsible? Ohhh, GISS, that explains a lot…..
Full kudoes to Tallbloke and his correspondents. This is simply appalling, but what else do we expect from our scientific betters…..
They work the same fiddles in the Arctic: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
Surely, these people should be held to account for rewriting the historical record.
This GISS mob are clever little vegemites, this cunning graft of temperature series is like grafting an orange on to a palm and making it a tropical fruit. Do they not understand or realise that outside their cloistered paradise of public money, others actually think and observe. I do hope some one in America asks them to clarify this rather odd mismatch and ask them for what reason they could possibly have for such blatant fudging. This is not science, but a deliberate attempt to prove some thing that is not occurring. Shame on them.
I notice there isn’t much slope to any of the three series in themselves. The trend only appears when you plot all three together and could well be due to differences in the mean lines of each series.
All that can be deduced from the top graph with any degree of confidence is that there has been no significant change in Antarctic temperature since measurements began in 1958.
They could have got an even bigger anomaly by using a station in Cape Town.
I expect that GISS did not expect anyone to check. Since sea ice in the Antarctic has increased I would expect a definite negative temperature anomaly. I expect your eyes will now be concentrated on GISS claims like never before.
Please keep us posted.
60 deg 44 mins south? To put that in perspective, 60deg 44 mins North goes through the most northerly part of the UK – the Shetland Islands. Its south of Anchorage Alaska, just north of Stockholm Sweden, passing through Helsinki Finland, slightly north of St Petersburg Russia, and quite a bit south of Iceland, which is entirely outside the Arctic circle (just).
Out and Out Fraud. No other way of putting it, heads should roll for this. GISS needs root and branch clean out.No place for data manipulation or for data “accountancy” sack and revoke their pensions
Best not to check on Base Orcadas temperatures with Weather Underground. The recent info is at Intellicast, and it’s relatively warm, the lowest low of the past two weeks was on October 9 at 32°F, barely freezing.
But WU says the station is not responding, and the “History and Almanac” section says the temperature yesterday was 1830°F (999°C).
Wow, that’d be a lot of global warming. And by the GISS 1200km temperature smearing technique, clear evidence the warming is now so bad that Antarctica must be melting and the continent is losing land ice. What greater proof would you need?
There is a range of 4 deg C prior to 1955 and since then the range is only 2 deg C. It sure looks like increasing CO2 is dampening variability and bringing much more stable conditions to Antarctica or then again maybe the data series really is crap.
Thanks for highlighting Roger Andrew’s Talkshop post here Anthony. The article merits the wide dissemination WUWT is able to give it.
Can you plot the full record of the Base Orcadas and the combined 1945-1955 peninsula stations, together with the mainland Antarctic stations only, up to current? That should give some idea of the difference in trends between the different latitudes…
David M, remember it’s all based on anomalies.
And we just had Mosh pontificating in the past few days at Dr.Judith Curry’s website that GISS record is the truest record and that HADCRUT 4 has a lot of errors and that he does not know why that is being used for science. See below link
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-258483
I wonder if he’ll come here to justify this manipulation and falsehood of GISS.
GISS temperature record for Base Orcadas, note it’s uncertain (AFAIK) how much is real measurements, with whatever amount of adjustments, and how much is made-up “infilled” measurements (“records” created from “nearby” stations when the station itself has no measurements):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=701889680005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Thrown in a spreadsheet, by the Annual Average numbers, from 1903 to 2011 (entire record) the warming trend was 0.206°C/decade.
But for the past 16 years, 1996-2011, trend was 0.322°C/decade. Guess Orcadas didn’t get the “Pause” memo.
Someone please check with Bob Tisdale what the surrounding sea surface temperatures were, if they had that much rise. As it is, I’m suspecting the normal AHHI effect (Antarctica Habitation Heat Island).
“The 1904-44 temperatures come from a single station – Base Orcadas in the South Orkneys northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula.”
That kind of extrapolation from far away is even extra invalid in the case of Antarctica.
Antarctica is a special situation where the ice is so pure as to be whiter than clouds. High-albedo shading, reflective clouds, ordinarily cooling, instead warm Antarctica. A reduction in cloud cover which would relatively warm other landmasses or the ocean can instead cool Antarctica.
The major distinction is illustrated in the following image, where, in the example of 1982 to 2004, there was simultaneously cooling over the ice and yet warming over the ocean a moderate number of miles away:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg
The reason for the sharpness of the difference? Temperature trends in Antarctica, like temperature trends elsewhere and “global warming,” are caused in large part by changes in average cloud cover (influenced by changes in cosmic ray flux, in turn driven by variation in solar activity and the interplanetary magnetic field which deflects many GCRs).
As seen by comparison of the preceding with the plot at http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/antarctica_temp_trends4.png?w=614 , Base Orcadas is right out way in the ocean (on a tiny island) where it would show warming during the 1982 to 2004 period despite Antarctica as a whole cooling during that period. Likewise, what temperature change Base Orcadas showed over the 1904 to 1944 period would be utterly different than the temperature change in Antarctica meanwhile.
Decades of Antarctica having temperature trends different from the bulk of the rest of the world are illustrated, with the reason explained, within http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
With apologies for a graph that had to be rotated to make it more readily readable, actual Antarctic temperatures over the past several centuries, as reconstructed by Thamban et al. 2011, are shown in http://s12.postimage.org/4w8ovbnx9/antarctemp.jpg
As one sees if comparing to global average temperatures (Loethle 2007 reconstruction) meanwhile, as shown as one of the plots within http://s8.postimage.org/nz4ionvit/suntemp0.jpg (click to enlarge), Antarctic temperature trends over the decades and centuries very much differ from elsewhere. Antarctic ice temperature trends are nothing like those of Base Orcadas on an island way out out in the ocean of different surrounding albedo.
Outstanding work Roger !!
It would appear that GISS is using the”Splice-O-Matic” tool (by Ronco) to put dissimilar records together.
One wonders where they have hidden all those tempts/studies that demonstrated a forested and animal populated Antarctic ? How could there possibly be any “unprecendented warming” when the place was once the stomping grounds of dinosaurs up to their eyeballs in greenery.
From wayne Job on October 22, 2012 at 2:07 am:
So they’re at least good for spreading on sandwiches?
GISS likes to spread around the taxpayer “bread”, usually among themselves. Instead taxpayers should be spreading GISS on bread? What a Revolutionary concept!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:24 am
Can you plot the full record of the Base Orcadas…
It’s actually two spliced records, neither of which show any warming until you put them together.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg
Worth reading the comments on Tallbloke’s site.
Such kind of record extension does not necessarily have to be wrong. If there is a good correlation between overlapping parts of these records, fill-in based on this correlation may be pretty close to reality.
Main problem of the graph is, I believe, absence of error bars corresponing to realistic uncertainity of the record.