Guest essay by Rud Istvan
WUWT readers will be familiar with the Karl et. al. pause buster paper Bob Tisdale has extensively critiqued, concerning which the NOAA administrator committed contempt of Congress by withholding related emails despite Rep. Lamar Smith’s Congressional Oversight Committee subpoena.
In 2013 Jim Hansen announced that GISS was switching to ERSST3.0. That means Gavin Schmidt would have used it for the January 2014 “warmest ever” PR, which embarrassed him when it was immedately pointed out that his own report said there was only a 32% chance this was true.
Time for some more egged faces (and fodder for the Congressional Oversight Committee), because NASA GISS would have used the Karlized ERSST4.0 for their 20 January 2016 PR proclaiming alarmingly that 2015 was the warmest ever, and by a lot!!! (It is, after all, a strong El Nino year similar to 1998.)
First, 2014 from the current NASA website, archived to save it from the memory hole. NASA posted its PR with the following chart on 16 January 2015.
The 2014 degrees C GISS anomaly is plainly 0.64C (not given in the PR text).
Note that 2014 GISS shows the temperature pause/hiatus also reflected in satellite and radiosonde observations. The joint NASA/NOAA 2016 press conference presentation did show them (perhaps because of Senator Cruz’ December hearing on climate ‘Data versus Dogma’). 2015 not hottest.
Second, from the same website, NASA’s version of the joint NOAA/NASA hottest ever (by a lot) PR, posted on 20 January 2016:
Plainly there was a 0.13C GISS anomaly increase over 2014.
This should mean that the alarming record 2015 anomaly is (0.64 + 0.13) 0.77C.
But not in the global warming proponent’s world.
From the joint presentation at the 20 January 2016 press conference:
It is worse than we thought. The official NASA GISS 2015 anomaly is 0.87C!!!
Illustrated differently, NOAA’s 2014 anomaly record from their website (archived) compared to the same chart for 2015, the one Adm.Tetley prominently featured in the Data or Dogma hearing to belittle the pause:
Pre Karlized: Pause Karlized: No Pause
This is alarming anthropogenic global warming. But it isn’t caused by CO2. It is obviously just government ‘scientists’ altering ‘official’ temperature records. A 0.1C jump in what the 2014 GISS anomaly supposedly is, manufactured during 2015. It is notable only because of the media ballyhoo that NOAA and NASA created, which they cannot now erase. There are many additional examples.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”
— Marmion, canto 6 stanza 17, by Sir Walter Scott
Tom Karl at NOAA and Gavin Schmidt at NASA have woven a tangled web.
Perhaps Senator Cruz and Representative Smith can untangle it.
in throwing this note together, I did not spot the NASA 2014 y axis labeling error. 0.7 should be 0.8. The 2014 GISS anomaly in 2014 is ~0.68C, not 0.64C, from the anomaly baseline 1951-1980. The anomaly baseline for 2015 is also 1951-1980, and the anomaly is explicitly 0.13 greater than 2014. The correct math is (0.68+0.13) 0.81C, versus karlized GISS 0.87C. The correct karlization of the 2014 anomaly is therefore (0.87 – 0.81) 0.06C, not 0.1C as in the post.
The post’s conclusion stands uncorrected.
Reminds me of an old book on astronomy I had back in the 80s regarding the rotation of Venus:.
They used various methods in the 70s and 80s until they could actually see through the clouds with radar to confirm the actual spin. The author used a line something like “turns out there was zero accuracy in the original estimates. And the further refinement of zero accuracy is…zero”.
Thanks, Rud Itsvan.
Not just adjusted and homogenized, but karlizised: Full warming service.
Lol — even better than … Mann-handled…. or In-Philled …. or Trend-berthed ….. or …… or……… OR SMOSHED!
#(:))
(hat tip to Gary Pearse for “karlize”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/the-karlization-of-earths-temperature/comment-page-1/#comment-2126573 )
A Karlization of 0.06C, is a Mann-ipulation in the fine tradition of shaving data known as Mann-scapeing. 😉
Thanks Janice, I thought Karlized was something we did by almost burning onions to make them sweeter.
Lol, Gary — “Karlize” is what you do when you have had a bottle of wine just before sauteeing…
🙂
Janice Moore:
I thought that was Pole-axing (as in one tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor… or imagining that the Arctic is ice free)
Can someone explain what may happen to the Rep. Lamar Smith investigation? I do not understand governmental process in the US (does anyone??)
Dear Owen,
Until a more informed person comes along, here is a bit of info. for you:
December 16, 2015
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-responds-noaa-delivery-documents-and-communications
I realize, Owen, that you were not asking for history, but for where this might possibly lead. Just started with the above.
To answer your question:
A Rough Sketch of What Might Happen to NOAA Officials and Responsible Employees
1. a. Subpeona (above-mentioned) is not complied with: criminal charges for obstruction of justice with prison the ultimate penalty.
b. Subpeona is complied with (meaningfully): House Science, Space, and Technology Committee (Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)) reviews produced documents and statements of any witnesses examined and decides whether to charge the NOAA officials with malfeasance or misfeasance (I would have to look up the exact crimes and I’m just not going to bother, sorry! — also See the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Sec.s 702 et. seq. ).
c. Prosecution: I think this lies with the Justice Dept. which is highly corrupt (as demonstrated by blatantly anti-U.S. Constitution actions taken over the past 7 years). Process against the l1es of Karl will stop here until the Justice Dept. is cleaned up (hopefully, with a Republican pres. entering office in 2017).
d. If grand jury indicts/formally charges, then, a special prosecutor (likely one would be appointed for this) begins the criminal trial — here, the defendants attorneys may recommend that the settle for admitting to a lesser crime. Prosecutor may accept or refuse the offer of settlement.
e. If trial, if convicted of fraud or ultra-vires acts or whatever is charged, PRISON.
Note: the shining light of publicity on the nefarious deeds done by Karl, et. al., is worth this process even if they end up “getting off.”
Hope that was helpful!
Janice
Look at these two different representations of the ENSO conditions. Are they similar looking? Note the broad brush high heat painting of a large area by NCEP , and compare that to what Weather Zone is showing. I get the impression that NCEP is showing a low resolution infilled mapping of the regions which gets them a higher value for the regions. On another note Weather Zone has shown a steady reduction in the warmth of the ENSO regions over the last 8 days in particular. The ENSO meter must be stuck. Maybe the mods could give it a tap or two….http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/
and here…http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Just a thought…so we can’t trust NOAA or NASA’s temperature adjustments, nor the process by which they do so. I have also heard that this (“Super”) El Nino is different than other (“Super”) El Nino’s (ex. the Northwest part of the country was suppose to be warm and very dry this winter). If we can’t trust NOAA and NASA with temp data why would we trust them with El Nino data? Just sayin”.
Just wondering…. why my comment above on this thread, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/the-karlization-of-earths-temperature/comment-page-1/#comment-2126144
did not answer that question (or, at least lead you to the linked Bob Tisdale article which would).
Dr. Judith Curry
It is obvious that you have not read any of Bob Tisdale’s articles or books that discuss ENSO. In them, he talks about MANY datasets which provide the evidence for an El Nino event.
Just type: “Bob Tisdale ENSO” into the WUWT search box (upper right margin of this page)
Or… read this:
Available here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/everything-you-every-wanted-to-know-about-el-nino-and-la-nina-2/
Or… one of these books: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/ebooks-by-bob-tisdale/
“Just sayin’ ” — Why?
Don’t have time to read every single post. Everything I see these days about the El Nino is coming from NASA and NOAA. Or someone referring to that data. Do we know for sure that there is a “super” El Nino? If 2015 is NOT the hottest year, why should we believe in a “super” El Nino?
Read Bob Tisdale’s articles and or books if you are interested in finding out the facts about ENSO and the various datasets that provide the evidence for it.
Not that I’ve heard.
In the meantime, the facts speak very loudly for themselves:
Dr. David Whitehouse, astrophysicist.
(Source: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/ )
********************************************
(yes, I realize NOAA the climate bully, has a loud megaphone, but, in the end, the truth will be heard — hang in there, O Warriors for Science Realism!)
Any word about the probability of 2015 being the hottest year? Last year the best the two (NASA or NOAA) could come up with was 38% and 48% probability respectively.
mptc58: I don’t know. I hope you get your question answered. You might try on a thread where people are still pretty actively posting (apologize for the interruption and explain why you are asking an off-topic Q there and you will be fine). Check the “Recent Comments” list in the right margin of this page for threads where people are “talking.”
Best wishes!
Janice
P.S. Perhaps, you meant 2016? Just FYI, in case. I do that each year at this time, too.
I do not know the exact number but it would be well over 90% since the difference is more than the margin of error of 0.1. For Hadcrut4, 2015 is 0.178 larger and 0.13 for GISS.
By the same token, it is over 90% certain that 2015 is NOT above 1998 for the satellites by over 90% for the same reason.
Thank you, Werner Brozek! SO glad you came along. Now! I just hope mptc takes the time to look back in here.
You are welcome!
Here I found this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
“Taking this into account, NASA analysis estimates 2015 was the warmest year with 94 percent certainty.”
Thanks (again!), Werner. Boy, are we blessed to have you (and the many other science giants) around this place.
And this (not for you, Werner Brozek, but, I feel the need to post a best-practices scientist’s opinion in case your reporting here of NASA/GISS, et. al.’s “record” is taken by some reader as your advocating and not your mere reporting of their opinion):
Dr. David Whitehouse, January 16, 2015, here: http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c8bbc1ccfe&e=f4e33fdd1e
P.S. to my 7:21pm post — while that quote was re: 2014, the same thing is going on re: 2015.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, November 19, 2015, here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
Sorry for the 2014 — 2015 mix-up!
Upthread, the author of this post acknowledges he made a mistake when he claimed the temperatures for 2014 had been given as 0.64C like he claimed. Unfortunately, he then says:
As several people have pointed out, the baseline did change between this year and last. The baseline period remains the same, but the actual baseline has shifted by ~0.06C, explaining the entire difference the author now clings to:
If one looks at the archived temperatures from last year, they find GISS gave annual temperatures as:
Note, that says 0.67C, not 0.68C. That’s because the copy of the temperatures I found was from a few months after the press releases about 2014 being the hottest year were released. During that time, precise values like that of the baseline could change. That’s the same reason why now the same file now gives temperatures as:
As this shows, the average temperature value has shifted upwards by ~0.06C. This is because results are updated over time, and that can cause baselines to shift. There is nothing nefarious about this. The idea changing the baseline used when presenting results is proof scientists are altering official records to manufacture a rise in temperatures is absurd.
So again, this post is complete and total garbage. It has done nothing but mislead readers due to its author having no idea what he’s talking about.
I wonder why the adjustments always favor more warming? Just coincidence I guess.
You really need to watch your confirmation bias. Adjusting the baseline doesn’t change how much warming there has been. All it does is change the 0 point. It’s basically no different than if you relabeled the axes of a graph to have different numbers, all a bit higher (or lower) than before. The numbers you see might be different, but the series itself is going to remain exactly the same.
Take any chart you have, and subtract 10 from every value on it. Odds are that won’t change anything. It certainly won’t change how much warming the charts show.
But that is not all that happened. For example, 2014 went up 0.06, 2013 went up 0.05, but 1998 only went up by 0.02. Guess what this does to the slope from 1998 to 2015.
Here are the top 10 anomalies for GISS for last year and this year:
“Adjust the baseline”, no more nefarious than moving a goalpost? In any event, an adjustment of .06 suggests (per many others in the thread above) an old error bar of at least ……… .06? Which has now been entirely resolved how? And the remaining error bar is? Ah, well, if you’re happy.
My comment was directed at Brandon S and his Soros-assigned tag-line-of-the-week, but W. Brozek plucked this pigeon better.
Werner Brozek, this site has discussed the fact past estimates of temperatures change by small amounts as the calculations are rerun with different amounts of data. It’s also discussed how updating the dataset used can change the results. Issues like those could well cause small fluctuations. That’d be true even if there was a change in baseline.
But when one looks at the data overall, it is clear there was a shift in baseline. That there may have also been other changes, which this post didn’t mention or even hint at, doesn’t change that fact. It’s just a way of changing the subject to avoid admitting the obvious mistakes this post makes.
It’s interesting to see me criticized for not pointing out estimates of temperatures can change by small amounts over time due to calculations being rerun with different amounts of data. Given that’s something which has been discussed at this site god knows how many times, I wouldn’t have thought it needed to be pointed out again.
I suspect if it had been convenient for people to remember this topic on their own, it would have been pointed out instead of forgotten. Maybe not by the same person, because individuals may not be that hypocritical, but certainly by the crowd which is.
GISS LOTI global temperature (degree F above 1951-1980 average)
Jun 2015 source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150623133414/http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp
(last datum there is for April 2015)
Jan 2016 source:
http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp
(last datum there is for December 2015)
As of As of
Jun 2015 Jan 2016
1/2014 0.69 0.73
2/2014 0.44 0.5
3/2014 0.71 0.77
4/2014 0.72 0.78
5/2014 0.79 0.86
6/2014 0.61 0.66
7/2014 0.5 0.58
8/2014 0.74 0.82
9/2014 0.82 0.9
10/2014 0.78 0.85
11/2014 0.63 0.68
12/2014 0.73 0.78
year 2014 0.68 0.74
Regarding the “Looking at the Atmosphere” set of graphs:
Predicted by theory and models, one of the only some things that the models got right: The stratosphere cools from increase of greenhouse gases while the surface and lower troposphere warm. The stratosphere-adjacent part of the troposphere gets little or no warming.
The uppermost troposphere had warming a little more negative than predicted, but the models got somewhat close there for global average. Where the models failed most for the atmosphere well aloft was their prediction for a hotspot of warming in the middle-upper troposphere well within the tropics.
Meanwhile, reality somewhat agrees with the models that the middle troposphere and higher has less warming than the lower troposphere and the surface.
Another thing to note: The satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have some contamination from sensing the upper troposphere, and the middle troposphere measurements are to some extent sensing as low as the lower troposphere and as high as the lower stratosphere.
One more thing: Radiosondes have lower coverage of the world than surface and satellite measurements. One thing that radiosonde data is used for is factchecking satellite measurements of the atmosphere in the parts of the world that have radiosonde coverage.
Oh come on Brandon, the whole exercise only exist because of baseline changes! And that is being very kind! It is incredibly insulting to tell anybody that the temperature has set a new record and at the same time tell them that the record is constantly changing!! For fuck sake what has happened to brain power of late!!!!
The dangers of ignoring that the real risk is global cooling. People don’t freeze to death during the warmth, and I’ve rarely heard of people dying from heat. People migrate to the warm climates, not the ice.
http://www.news.com.au/video/id-tyZ2xhMDE6c6BUVoAQLhvkMJX0yVUP0C/Woman-freezes-to-death-after-leaving-house-party
I just tried looking in web.archive.org for:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
This comes up “access denied” for all dates when the latest datum is later than November 2014 and earlier than April 2015.
Meanwhile, if the December 2014 figure is unchanged from when it was first released to when the April 2015 figure was released, then the year 2014 would have been first reported at .67 degree C above the 1951-1980 average. This looks to me as fairly likely, since from the time the November 2014 figure was released to the time the April 2015 figure was released, the average of the changes for the October and November figures is zero and the average change of all 11 months of 2014 where I saw data is +.01 degree.
geez–not too long ago “setting a record” was a meaningful term in most endeavors
since the “97%” have never bothered to identify an optimum global temperature for global well-being, I can’t see a valid point to all this “100ths of a degree” hot nonsense from GISS or NOAA (or whomever) any way I look at it.
But thanks anyway Rud, for taking the time and effort to post this.
Kudos for doing it on your own dime and not mine.
Regarding the graph showing NASA reporting the year 2014 as having been .64 degree C above the 1951-1980 average:
This looks like http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083
web.archive.org shows this in their 2015 archives from 1/20 through 9/5; the 1/21/15 one is at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150121074859/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083
There are no archives since 9/5/2015 as of now.
Meanwhile, this page – the one about 2014 – currently looks a little different, with a temperature anomaly for 2014 reported and being .68 degree C rather than .64.
I suspect a bug – perhaps along the lines of the graph in all of the 2015 archives being the oldest version found by the Wayback Machine, a preliminary version with the 2014 temperature anomaly not stated and incorrectly graphed as .64 rather than .68 degree C. I suspect possibly all of the 2015 archives show the graph incorrectly because it was updated without a change of its date later in the day it was first archived.
My followup on the archives of http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083
The archives may be correct – and this page may have had the graphic in question updated and corrected after the date of the last archive – possibly in response to this 1/21/2016 article.