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
Henry@tallbloke
I wonder what you think of my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1117629
I remember you and Leif having a go at each other some time ago about the influence of the planets, if I am not mistaken?
Do you still think that it is the pull of the planets causes my observed weather cycle?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:24 am
You beat me to it, this is the obvious way of checking what impact this splicing of different data sete is having. I’m sure the GISS folks will have performed such a basic QA check…
Base Orcadas.
Started in 1904. Were the instruments accurate back then?
How old was the measuring instruments when installed?
It looks as if GISS threw in a huge correction for a more northerly location of Base O.
This methodology is safer and saves time and resources. The northern equivalent, would get Arctic temperatures by simply setting thermometers in northern Scotland or southern Norway.
here’s the skinny on Base Orcadas from another talkshop contributor. Check these plots!
Jostemikk says:
October 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for an interesting topic. Feel free to use this graphs if they are of any interest.
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1003.0;attach=3080;image
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1003.0;attach=3082;image
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1003.0;attach=3084;image
As Kevin Trenberth once said “It is hard to make data where none exist”
And yet that’s par for the course in AGW land.
HenryP says:
October 22, 2012 at 4:44 am
Henry@tallbloke
I wonder what you think of my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-15-arctic-refreeze-fastest-ever/#comment-1117629
I remember you and Leif having a go at each other some time ago about the influence of the planets, if I am not mistaken?
Do you still think that it is the pull of the planets causes my observed weather cycle?
In my view there is no single sine wave solution.
Bloke down the pub:
At October 22, 2012 at 2:11 am you say
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.
Yes!
And please remember that the first IPCC Report (AR1) projected greatest warming in the Arctic and the Antarctic because those regions have little atmospheric water vapour to mask warming effects of increasing CO2.
Figure 5.4 in the AR1 shows projections of surface air temperature (ten year means) due to doubling CO2 for winter (December, January & February) and for summer months (June, July & August) provided by three climate models.
The models were
CCC: Canadian Climate Centre
GFHI: Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory
UKHI: United Kingdom Meteorological Office
The Figure shows their projected Antarctic temperature rises were
In winter
CCC: 4 to 8 deg.C rise
GFHI: 4 to 8 deg.C rise
UKHI: 2 to 6 deg.C rise.
And
In summer
CCC: 6 to more than 12 deg.C rise
GFHI: 6 to more than 12 deg.C rise
UKHI: 2 to between 8 and 12 deg.C rise.
Very conservatively, the projections can be interpreted as being
winter rise of 4 deg.C
summer rise of 8 deg.C
providing a very conservative estimate of annual rise of 6 deg.C in Antarctica for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Mauna Loa data shows annual atmospheric CO2 has increased by 19% (from 315.97 to 391.57 ppmv) since 1959. Hence, making the very conservative assumption of linear temperature increase in response to increase in atmospheric CO2 then the IPCC projection says
Antarctic temperature should have increased by more than 1 deg.C since 1958.
The observed trend is less than a third of the projection.
Richard
This is like using one weather station in Bermuda to establish the historic temperature record for all of North America.
Fraud indeed!!
What if warming is coming from the sun? Is that possible?
Surely someone has since compared the records to see how these three sources compare? Do Orcadas and A Peninsula track the polar region temps? That would give at least some idea of the justification for the record.
Wonder how the farmers here in NE Oregon would like it if they were told to expect temperatures and precipitation based on Newport Beach’s sensor on the Pacific Coast? Or maybe even a sensor perched on an atoll half way to Hawaii? Based on these temperature series we should be able to develop a bananna plantation, or at least grow cranberries, yes?
Come on Hansen, have you no practical knowledge whatsoever?
tallbloke says
In my view there is no single sine wave solution.
henry says
true there could be a few more, but I think this one is the more important one, causing a clear weather cycle, more wet during cooling and more dry during warming.
Where do you you think the blue line (actual measured) must go but further down south? The fit I finally chose is in fact the most modest one giving me the lowest possible rate of cooling. If I use any other fit I get much higher cooling rates. Remember that the total warming/cooling rate over the whole of this 88 year cycle is 0.0 K per year….
I also think that the correlation of my sine wave
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
with the dates of the level of Nile flooding is stunning.
I thought you would be interested as W.Arnold thought that that 100 year weather cycle must be related to the movement of the planets.
You all seemed to have missed the fact that the GISS motto is: ‘Cooling the Past’
They should rename GISS to GIGO.
As someone who lives at 60 N, I’m happy to report that the temperature across the Arctic today is a balmy 4,5 deg C.
To put Louis Hooffstetter’s one weather station another way, it would be like using El Paso TX or Omaha NB to identify the temperature in Breckenridge CO. Both are within the 1200 km
which various warmists like to use.
more soylent green!
At October 22, 2012 at 7:11 am you suggest
I respectfully disagree, I think
They should rename GISS to MIGO (i.e. Money In, Garbage Out).
Richard
My grandmother taught me that a man with one watch has a good idea of what time it is, and a man with two watches is never sure what time it is. Now I think we can add that a man with three watches can claim it is whatever time he wants it to be.
Something to ponder: This is really just more evidence that the temperature reconstruction too unreliable to be usable prior to 1950. Unfortunately, this is the period that paleoclimate people are forced to use for their “calibration period” (due to the divergence problem post 1960).
I personally don’t have a problem with starting any analysis in 1950.
It seems the general philosophy of pro-AGW climate science is that ‘you can be imaginative in how you manipulate the data, so long as it gives the ‘right’ answer.’
If it gives the ‘wrong’ answer, then bin it to avoid accusations of fraud or denialism.
Its very much like a policeman (or woman) collecting evidence for a murder when he (or she) already knows who done it. Its ok to fix the evidence to make sure you get the right man (…or woman).
OT
6 years jail sentence each for the Italian scientists who failed to predict the earthquake.
Climate scientists watch out!
Thank you everyone for you comments. I’ll respond as time permits.
But in the meantime another skeleton has fallen out of the closet. In a comment above Tallbloke posted some graphs from Jostemikk, and I reproduce one of them here:
http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1003.0;attach=3082;image
This graph shows that there are in fact two temperature records in the South Orkneys – Laurie Island and Louise Island, which is something I didn’t know when I wrote the post. Laurie Island, which shows warming, is the one that GISS and just about everyone else uses as “Base Orcadas”. Louise Island, which doesn’t show warming, appears as “Base Orcadas” only in the KNMI “adjusted” GHCN data base, I suspect by mistake.
Another graph posted by Tallbloke in an earlier comment further shows that the Laurie Island record, the one that GISS uses, contains a large artificial discontinuity in 1951 that adds maybe 1.5C of overall warming.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vjpunk.jpg
Here’s how the Laurie Island and Louise Island records compare when this discontinuity is removed.
http://oi49.tinypic.com/3145o52.jpg
Not perfect, but I think good enough to show a) that the Laurie Island record is indeed warming-biased and b) that there’s been no significant warming in the South Orkneys since 1900.
So it seems that not only did GISS base all of its Antarctic series before 1945 on a demonstrably contaminated record from a station located miles outside the Antarctic, it also ignored an uncontaminated record sitting right next door.
It’s outrageous really. did they really think no-one would rumble their stupid warming tricks?
But they’re all teleconnected, aren’t they?