Guest Post By Walter Dnes:
There have been various comments recently about GISS’ “dancing data”, and it just so happens that as GISS data is updated monthly, I’ve been downloading it monthly since 2008. In addition, I’ve captured some older versions via “The Wayback Machine“. Between those 2 sources, I have 94 monthly downloads between August 2005 and May 2014, but there are somegaps in the 2006 and 2007 downloads. Below is my analysis of the data.
Data notes
- I´ve focused on the data to August 2005, in order to try to make this an apples-to-apples comparison.
- The net adjustments between the August 2005 download and the May 2014 download (i.e. the earliest and latest available data). I originally treated 1910-2005 as one long segment (the shaft of the “hockey-stick”). Later, I broke that portion into 5 separate periods.
- A month-by-month comparison of slopes of various portions of the data, obtained from each download.
- Those of you who wish to work with the data yourselves can download this zip file, which unzips as directory “work”. Please read the file “work/readme.txt” for instructions on how to use the data.
- GISS lists its reasons for adjustments at two webpages:
- The situation with USHCN data, as summarized in Anthony´s recent article , may affect the GISS results, as GISS global anomaly uses data from various sources including USHCN.
In the graph below, the blue dots are the differences in hundredths of a degree C for the same months between GISS data as of May 2014 versus GISS data as of August 2009. GISS provides data as an integer representing hundredths of a degree C. The blue (1880-1909) and red (1910-2005) lines show the slope of the adjustments for the corresponding periods. Hundredths of a degree per year equal degrees per century. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are…
- 1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
- 1910-2005 +0.190 C degree per century
The next graph is similar to the above, except that the analysis is more granular, i.e. 1910-2005 is broken up into 5 smaller periods. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are…
- 1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
- 1910-1919 +0.732 C degree per century
- 1920-1939 +0.222 C degree per century
- 1940-1949 -1.129 C degree per century
- 1950-1979 +0.283 C degree per century
- 1980-2005 +0.110 C degree per century
The next graph shows the slopes (not adjustments) for the 6 periods listed above on a month-by-month basis, from the 94 monthly downloads in my possession.
- 1880-1909; dark blue;
- From August 2005 through December 2009, the GISS data showed a slope of -0.1 C degree/century for 1880-1909.
- From January 2010 through October 2011, the GISS data showed a slope between +0.05 and +0.1 C degree/century for 1880-1909.
- From November 2011 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope around zero for 1880-1909.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope around -0.6 to -0.65 C degree per/century for 1880-1909.
- 1910-1919; pink;
- From August 2005 through December 2008, the GISS data showed a slope of 0.7 C degree/century for 1910-1919.
- From January 2009 through December 2011, the GISS data showed a slope between +0.55 and +0.6 C degree/century for 1910-1919.
- From January 2012 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope bouncing around between +0.6 and +0.9 C degree/century for 1910-1919.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope around 1.4 to 1.5 C degree per/century for 1910-1919.
- 1920-1939; orange;
- From August 2005 through December 2005, the GISS data showed a slope between +1.15 and +1.2 C degree/century for 1920-1939.
- From May 2006 through November 2011, the GISS data showed a slope of +1.3 C degree/century for 1920-1939.
- From December 2011 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope around +1.25 C degree/century for 1880-1909.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope around +1.4 C degree per/century for 1880-1909.
- 1940-1949; green;
- From August 2005 through December 2005, the GISS data showed a slope between -1.25 and -1.3 C degree/century for 1940-1949.
- From May 2006 through December 2009, the GISS data showed a slope between -1.65 and -1.7 C degree/century for 1940-1949.
- From January 2010 through November 2011, the GISS data showed a slope around -1.6 C degree/century for 1940-1949.
- From December 2011 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope bouncing around between -1.6 to -1.7 C degree/century for 1940-1949.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope bouncing around between -2.35 to -2.45 C degree per/century for 1940-1949.
- 1950-1979; purple;
- From August 2005 through October 2011, the GISS data showed a slope between +0.1 and +0.15 C degree/century for 1950-1979.
- From November 2011 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope bouncing around between +0.2 and +0.3 C degree/century for 1950-1979.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope around +0.4 C degree per/century for 1950-1979.
- 1980-2005; brown;
- From August 2005 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope of +1.65 C degree/century for 1980-2005.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope around +1.75 to +1.8 C degree per/century for 1980-2005.
- 1910-2005; red;
- This is a grand summary. From August 2005 through December 2005, the GISS data showed a slope of +0.6 C degree/century for 1910-2005.
- From May 2006 through December 2011, the GISS data showed a slope of +0.65 C degree/century for 1910-2005.
- From January 2012 through November 2012, the GISS data showed a slope bouncing around +0.65 to +0.7 C degree/century for 1910-2005.
- From December 2012 through latest (May 2014), the GISS data showed a slope of +0.8 C degree per/century for 1980-2005.
In 7 years (December 2005 to December 2012), the rate of temperature rise for 1910-2005 has been adjusted up from +0.6 to +0.8 degree per century, an increase of approximately 30%.
Commentary
- It would be interesting to see what the data looked like further back in time. Does anyone have GISS versions that predate 2005? Can someone inquire with GISS to see if they have copies (digital or paper) going further back? Have there been any versions published in scientific papers prior to 2005?
- Given how much the data has changed in the past 9 years, what might it be like 9 years from now? Can we trust it enough to make multi-billion dollar economic decisions based on it? I find it reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984” where;
“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The adjustments are necessary to get the data ‘on message’, colder in the past, warmer in the present and that troublesome warm spell in the 30th can’t be natural variability – it must be bad data – now ‘corrected’.
…………should say 30’s (1930’s)
Great work!
“Can someone inquire with GISS to see if they have copies (digital or paper) going further back? ”
Id be shocked.
You need to make a short animated movie out of that. Two frames per month. Watch the line dance.
So from 1905 to 2014, the temperature adjustments have brought 0.21C of warming to the data, so the Global meteorological stations show 1905 as -0.30C and 2014 as +0.80C, a difference of 1.1C. The new rise since 1905 would be 0.89C in 2014. If we fixed the 1905 temp at -0.30C, the 2014 increase would then be +0.59C, and 0.54C/century.
By this time I haven’t a clue what the temperature data means anymore, except that whatever the temperatures are doing, they are doing it at a rate considerably less in than the IPCC models.
That is actually enough: the models hold all the terror, but the models are a failure. There is no catastrophic or significant harm at the observed rate of temperature rise. If you want to de-carbonize the world for ideological reasons, you can’t use temperature observations as a supporting technical reason.
http://floridamemory.com/fpc/JJS/JJS0078.jpg
Most US Government data is reported to Congress and can be found in Congressional records. Those records would likely not be “adjusted”.
Wonder what certain groups’ reaction would be if someone “corrected” the records to reflect an assumed value for UHI?
Do they have an explanation of why they are doing this?
US temperature data only,
2001 version,
http://web.archive.org/web/20010507091402/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2000 version,
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006
From Goddards place:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/onwards-and-upwards-at-the-us-government/
I don’t see a hockey stick here. But the fact is that GISS doesn’t do much adjusting at all now. Since GHCN V3 came out, they have used the GHCN adjusted data, with Menne’s pairwise homogenization. That’s the main reason for the change.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Läs och begrunda alla CO2-kramare:
The next graph is similar to the above, except that the analysis is more granular, i.e. 1910-2005 is broken up into 5 smaller periods. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are…
1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
1910-1919 +0.732 C degree per century
1920-1939 +0.222 C degree per century
1940-1949 -1.129 C degree per century
1950-1979 +0.283 C degree per century
1980-2005 +0.110 C degree per century
Se rebloggen nedan.
Det har alltså inte räckt med att “korrigera” faktiska data för GISS. För att “data” skall passa in i de sk. datamodellerna (som rent ut sagt bara är bevis på okunskap i hur man skriver systemprogram) så har man också ändrat i sina tidigare korrigeringar när dessa korrigerade data inte längre stämt med CO2-hot “hypotesen”
Thanks Walter. Man made. Global Warming. To order.
Thanks Walter.
I think you have shown why the weather folks need super-fast computers and run them 24/7 to keep the adjustments coming.
———————————————
jaffa says:
July 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm
…………should say 30′s (1930′s)
should say 1930s
MattN says:
> July 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm
>
> Do they have an explanation of why they are doing this?
Near the beginning of the post where I say
> GISS lists its reasons for adjustments at two webpages:
There are links to 2 webpages with their rationale…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
I don’t think the method of calculating trend in multiple segments is correct. Because the segments don’t exist in isolation from each other, they should ‘join up’, ie. the end point of one segment should be the startpoint of the next.
I’ll see if I can download the data, run the calc, and report back (I’m out for the next few hours).
Mike Jonas says:
> July 3, 2014 at 5:28 pm
> I don’t think the method of calculating trend in multiple segments is
> correct. Because the segments don’t exist in isolation from each other,
> they should ‘join up’, ie. the end point of one segment should be the
> startpoint of the next.
The segments appear to have been adjusted separately, and I can’t see any over-riding reason why the endpoints must join up. I’m taking the numbers and plotting what shows up. The acronym GIEGO (Garbage In Equals Garbage Out), comes to mind.
Walter, I would update the post to say “trillion dollar civilization changing decisions” as that is what is at stake.
Does anyone have GISS versions that predate 2005?….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/giss-data-tampering-worse-than-it-seems/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/onwards-and-upwards-at-the-us-government/
This is the earliest I have come across in numeric data. Global temperatures 1880-1993, Global first, NH second, SH third.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends93/temp/hansen.612
Abstract: This data set represents temperature changes over the past century
(1880-1993) calculated from surface air temperatures published in the
“World Weather Records” and the World Meteorological Organization’s
(WMO) Monthly Climatic Data for the World, supplemented by monthly
mean station records available from NOAA’s Climate Analysis Center.
At each gridpoint, data from nearby stations are combined to form an
estimate of the temperature change (Hansen and Lebedeff (1987)).
Data is presented as temperature anomalies relative to a reference
period of 1951-1980 in degrees Celsius for the globe, Northern
Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere.
The citation for this dataset is:
Wilson, H., and J. Hansen. 1994. “Global and hemispheric temperature
anomalies from instrumental surface air temperature records”,
pp. 609-614. In T.A. Boden, D.P. Kaiser, R.J. Sepanski, and F.W. Stoss
(eds.), Trends ’93: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change. ORNL/CDIAC-65. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA
GISS doesn’t adjust data so much as it fabricates a data-food-product via some algorithmic processes applied to GHCN / USHCN.
I got GISTemp to run some time back, and did a load of analysis on the thing. Then figured out it was just a bad caricature of the data; and that the real “magic” was being done up stream anyway in the GHCN.
I’ve not looked at it in a few years, but the original work is still “up”. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/ as an entry point.
The tech stuff is here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/gisstemp-technical-and-source-code/
Also, for GHCN stuff: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/
I came up with what is a more simple and, IMHO, clean way to present the data. A load of graphs and stuff here: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
The fundamental “issues” likely to cause variation in trend are the (referenced above by Nick Stokes) change in input data set (and, one presumes, code – though I haven’t looked lately), and that every run of GIStemp makes a load of new manipulations of all the data items based on what other data items exist in the input data set… that changes every month. No two runs the same… (Details at my site / links – with some digging).
At this point, it is best to think of GIStemp as a sort of carnival mirror reflecting the changes made to GHCN by NOAA/NCDC in a slightly daft way (as my personal opinion of what the code does). So you need to track both of those to figure out “why”… Oh, and for several years USHCN new data was not used in GIStemp as the format changed and they didn’t get on board with it “for a few years”. I did a posting on that…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/ushcn-v2-gistemp-ghcn-what-will-it-take-to-fix-it/
I’d not use GIStemp ‘data’ for anything. Period.
If you would like, you can recreate some of the past GIStemp output via using older GHCN and USHCN data for input to your own vintage copy of GIStemp. I’m willing to help you ‘make it go’ if you want (and need any help). I have the old data saved… and the old code.
So it is clear that this is not random, this is “history re-engineering.” My question is: is this some lone ranger weather guy on a political crusade? Or is there some new algorithm that is faulty? Or is there a dedicated group (in which why has there been no leak?). Or has this been achieved through policy decisions at a higher level, in which case those should be visible?
Bill Illis says:
> July 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm
>
> This is the earliest I have come across in numeric data.
> Global temperatures 1880-1993, Global first, NH second, SH third.
>
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends93/temp/hansen.612
Thanks. More numbers for me to look at. I’m also poking around in the USHCN data right now, and finding some interesting stuff.
It is pathetic that the government allows and the media remains silent concerning this obvious climategate charade.
This is a good confirmation of the old analysis of temperature records….that the keepsrs of the data have adjusted the hell out of it, by cooling the past, and heating the present to create a bigger trend.