According to Hansen, the land surface has warmed 1.2C since 1880.
This is blatant scientific fraud. As you can see below, he had almost no temperature data in the 1880s for Africa, Greenland, South America, Northern Canada, Siberia, The Arctic, the Antarctic and South Asia. His error bar (green) is much too small to be correct. The few stations in South America and Africa show little or no warming since 1880
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
To make matters worse, he has corrupted the US temperature data, which makes up more than a third of the available stations for comparison. Note that a number of stations in Africa and Australia have cooled, and that most of his warming is in UHI affected areas. For all we know, the 1880s may have been warmer than the present. How is it that glaciers were rapidly melting in the 1880s, and growing in the 1960s and 1970s? How can he possibly claim that 2011 is 1.2C warmer than the 1880s based on the limited data above? It is complete nonsense to make such a claim.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Before Hansen tampered with the data, US 1880s temperatures were nearly as warm as 1990s temperatures. This is critically important – because the lion’s share of high quality global weather stations during the 1880s were located in the US. Hansen’s thermometers reported little warming in the US since 1880s, and the “warming” only appears after the data has been modified. Without the US temperature data tampering (adjustments) the “global” trend since 1880 gets greatly reduced.
The hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe and in Washington DC both occurred in 1881. Hansen’s data has zero legitimacy. He is missing data from at least 0.70 of the land surface during the 19th century, yet reports trends within 0.01 degrees. He would fail any undergraduate science class for reporting a precision two orders of magnitude larger than his accuracy. It is illegitimate science to publish this temperature data without an accurate error bar, and lots of disclaimers describing the severe limitations of accuracy.
It is imperative that he publishes equally available graphs made from unaltered data, even if he honestly believes his bogus adjustments are accurate. And his altered graphs need to be clearly marked. Most people believe that they are seeing temperatures reported by thermometers, and that simply isn’t true.
Clarence and Richmond Examiner (Grafton, NSW) Tuesday 31 July 1906
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61454507
CIA report below from 1974, showing that snow and ice were increasing during the 1970s. Hansen reports higher temperatures in the 1970s than the 1880s, yet we know that glaciers and polar ice were disappearing in the 1880s.
It would be impossible to have disappearing ice at lower temperatures, and increasing ice at higher temperatures – yet that is exactly what Hansen’s data shows.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
I notice that most of the coloured squares in the GISS 1880 – 1900 map are in the temperate regions. A surprising number are in the Arctic. Relatively few are in the tropics. So, unless GISS have done one of their infamous “corrections”, the 1880 end of the graph is biased towards coolness – it really represents just the temperature of the temperate world. Not surprising then, that this graph rises as increasing proportions of tropical data are added.
What initially attracted me to this this site was when quite ordinary months or years were being touted as the warmest EVER. Also when every single month or year was making the top five or top ten. It did not seem possible. Was quit obvious that they were overplaying their hand.
“quite” obvious, not “quit” obvious.
quite it, we’ve had quit enough!
This blatant manipulation has been going on for too long. It doesn’t look like it’s going to stop anytime soon.
The feeling of helplesness makes a man think about terrible things.
Anybody know the contact details for the Corleones?
I feel the same. Thinking retributively. A couple of reminders:
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” — Daniel Botkin, ex-chair ucsb Env. Studies
“…we need to start treating them [skeptics] now as traitors.” — RFK jr
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” -David Roberts, Grist Magazine
I suppose one could argue that we aren’t in an interglacial period because we have no temperature readings from most of the globe for 20,000 years ago.
I think that a look at the large areas of red and orange would suggest that temperatures are getting warmer. Calling someone a fraud diminishes your own credibility. A more unbiased view would be that the data are incomplete, but the scientist made a sincere effort to describe a phenomenon based on the limited data available.
It appears that you would argue that no conclusion can be drawn from existing data. That is a rather poor argument to defeat global warming enthusiasts.
As for me, it appears that (1) the planet has been getting warmer and the sea levels rising for about 20,000 years — and that this could not have been due to factories, automobiles and other modern conveniences; (2) that continued warming is probably a good thing (I live in Wisconsin), and (3) that politicians are engaged in an old-fashioned power grab based on the “war is the health of the state” model.
Did you read the part about the US data being altered? Did you read the part about glaciers melting in the 1880s, but not in the 1970s?
Nahh, He’s too busy perfecting pompous poses to post online.
“A more unbiased view would be that the data are incomplete, but the scientist made a sincere effort to describe a phenomenon based on the limited data available.”
Are you not aware of the egregious revisionism of past temperature data (ever in the message enhancement direction and without scientific justification) as demonstrated by Steven many times. Have you not read the climategate emails. Hansen and company are not cute, cuddly and slightly befuddled professorial types. They are “scientists” of the blatantly activist, politicized and post-modern ilk.
@RA:”ever in the message enhancement direction and without scientific justification”
Wrong, GISS adjustments have both raised and lowered temperatures. And all of the adjustments have been based on scienctific study. Now, you may not have read the papers that detail the hows and whys, but to claim otherwise is ignorant.
Kevin, your efforts to deflect are transparent. Look at Steven’s blink chart demonstrating an astonishing adjustment to the US temperature record. This adjustment is not just a matter of fine tuning, it is a major change to the record, one that changes entirely the import of the record. GISS is basically saying that previous to 2000, our temperature reconstruction contained major and fundamental errors that needed correction. Does anyone really believe that major advances in the science of temperature reconstruction occurred between 1999 and 2000? Do you agree that the GISS US temperature record prior to 2000 was fundamentally defective?
@RA: No, you’re saying that — not GISS, not the scientists involved, and not the scientific community. Quantify the errors. Quantify the significance.
I’ve read numerous papers and nothing I’ve read says *anything* like what you (or SG) posit.
The methodology and rationale are all spelled out in publicly available papers. If you wish to discuss that I’m more than open to it. Instead I see hyperbole and rhetoric.
1) Should the data be adjusted to give comparable Time of Observation?
2) Should the data be adjusted to account for changes in instrumentation?
3 Should the data be adjusted for changes in data collection methodology?
4) Should the data be adjusted to account for UHI effects?
The Hansen/GISS global temperature product also depends on other data series for input. When these inputs change or are updated, the GISS product will change correspondingly. I’m not sure one could justify using an inferior input dataset.
It should also be remembered this is *one* line of scientific evidence. Temperature analysis from boreholes and glacier melt are in accord with the GISS product. Occam’s razor starts to get uncomfortable when you want to discount three independent lines of scientific inquiry. Once you do that it’s tinfoil hat territory.
You are a gem K. If I ever have need to say something that is completely meaningless to support the vaguest of ideas I think I’ll have to look you up. So now GISS is in accord that in general it was colder at some time in the 19th century. Don’t you get tired of apologizing for the garbage out of GISS?
Tell us Creepy Old Eric, does the borehole data and the glacier melt data agree with the GISS temperature reconstruction to with .04C/century?
K: “temperature reconstruction to with .04C/century?”
I see. There is strong evidence that given 2 points a and b, GISS can draw a line between them given a couple of chances. *THAT* explains everything, and only a couple of billion for it. Inflation is getting nasty. Kevin gets a star and we all get to send a check to our favorite bureaucrats for unspecified trillions.
Kevin, could you try to start thinking scientifically rather than rationalizing? There is a difference although I have serious doubts whether you’ll ever understand.
No, the red,and orange you are witnessing are the heavy metals being dumped into our atmosphere and are illuminating off the sun. chemtrails!!!
Fredric Dennis Williams: What follows elaborates some on what I had previously submitted to you.
“Breaking News! Climategate comes to the United States! Meet the two men who have dug through several layers of computer codes to uncover manipulation of the world temperature data to support the claims of global warming. This is a major climate scandal involving United States government agencies.”
John Coleman, KUSI Meteorologist
The link didn’t get included with the above, here it is:
John Coleman, KUSI Meteorologist
One last time because I think that this link is important.
John Coleman, KUSI Meteorologist
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201362-Cooked-US-government-s-central-role-in-fudging-the-data-behind-global-warming-
Mr Williams, I love the “reflective” hand on the chin in your photo. You must be a real thinker. A nice but subtle appeal to authority. Therefore, you must be right.
This is from Pittsburgh, whose records go back to 1871…
Highest Temperatures on Record Warmest Days on Record
(Highest Mean Temps)
103 Jul 16, 1988 1. 92 Aug 6, 1918
103 Aug 6, 1918 2. 91 Jul 10, 1881
103 Jul 10, 1881 3. 90 Aug 5, 1918
102 Jul 14, 1936 4. 90 Jul 1, 1901
102 Sep 6, 1881 5. 89 Jul 20, 1930
101 Jul 7, 1988 6. 89 Aug 31, 1880
101 Jul 9, 1936 7. 88 Sep 7, 1881
101 Jul 10, 1936 8. 88 Sep 6, 1881
101 Aug 5, 1918 9. 88 Jul 3, 1898
101 Aug 7, 1918 10. 88 Jul 9, 1876
101 Jul 17, 1887 11. 88 Jul 10, 1936
101 Jul 18, 1878 12. 88 Jul 16, 1980
101 Sep 5, 1881 13. 88 Jul 18, 1878
101 Jul 9, N/A 14. 88 Jul 21, 1930
100 Jul 15, 1995 15. 88 Jul 25, 1934
100 Aug 17, 1988 16. 88 Jul 28, 1901
100 Jul 4, 1911 17. 87 Jul 26, 1892
100 Jul 20, 1878 18. 87 Jul 14, 1936
100 Sep 7, 1881 19. 87 Aug 30, 1880
100 Sep 10, 1884 20. 87 Aug 7, 1918
87 Jun 22, 1988
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/pbz/twarm.htm#MONTHS
And two other links where I found interesting data…
http://weather.sg.msn.com/daily_averages.aspx?wealocations=wc:CAXX0504&weai=9
http://www.cbs6albany.com/sections/weather/historical/preciprecords/september.html
But I’m sure folks back then were not as clever as Hansen, they never made the big bucks.
That got a little crowded! Better viewing at the link.
Gator,
I love all that information on Pittsburgh. Certainly no sign of a catastrophe with that record.
“…..he had almost no temperature data in the 1880s for Africa, Greenland, South America, Northern Canada, Siberia, The Arctic, the Antarctic and South Asia.”
It is my understanding that Hansen’s team had almost no temperature data at all. As NASA told USA Today in an email, it is actually just a modeling office, which also cobbles together some US data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with that of the Climatic Research Unit’s temperature history. Yet CRU withdrew its claim to a temperature history data set after ClimateGate led to an admission it actually lost its data.
source
Ground hog day all over again – “NASA’s temperature record, which NASA was forced to correct in response to criticism from a leading climate watchdog, Steve McIntyre. Those corrections destroyed NASA’s stance that U.S. temperatures have been steadily rising in recent years and returned 1934, not 1998, to being the warmest year on record.”
source
I presume the GISS attitude is, if the data is lost, we can simply make up data. If caught, wait a few years, rinse and repeat.
Email 3408, Phil Jones: “I’d like the world to warm up quicker.”
This, in his own words, in his own email, shows that this is about something else than climate. There is no other interpretation, folks. The pretense is that the proposed severe CO2 cuts are to prevent warming, BUT he says he WANTS the world to warm. If the warming-caused disasters would be as disastrous as they keep Crying Wolf about, why would he want that??
I have said that the climate loons are driven by a leftist ideology, a desire for de-industrialization This all but proves it — certainly, the idea that they are driven by the hope of saving the world from warmth is belied by his own words. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s about the climate, because it’s not about climate. This is a sham, a fraud.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/email-3408-jan-2008-phil-jones-like.html
As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
People think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices”
Describes the IPCC Panel quite well:
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. –Galileo
As Galileo said, if God did not want us to use our intelligence, why did he give it to us?
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken
‘Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action’ — Goethe
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
Reading the full email, Eric, it is interesting that Santer is slagging off Christy, when all Christy has suggested is that climate models be subjected to independent testing.
This Hansen is the guy who let his grandchild write to the President
“Please Mr President, listen to my grandfather”
I am not American, I lived in DC 30 years ago for 3 years as a science counselor.
I visited during that period twice a month Goddard Research Center and I saw there serous people.
How is it possible that the Nasa people do not stand up?
Do not wait until your retirement, like Joan Simpson the famous meteorologist, react now and send him away.
Wrong Goddard. Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. is a serious scientific center which is responsible for most US government funded non-military Earth orbiting satellites.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is in NYC above the Seinfeld cafe. It’s expensive to live in NYC on a government salary. They had to come up with something.
The United States and ALL of its territories comprise 1.9% of the earth’s surface.
For the last 30 years, overall change in that 1.9% is very similar to overall change in entire world:
http://www.real-science.com/shock-news-global-temperatures-track-temperatures
So what is your point?
Which is what makes it OK. You can cheat on 2% of the test as long as you give honest answers on the other 98%. Oh, BTW, would you mind not grading the other 98%?
Kevin,
I knew I could count on you to take the bait. Apparently Hansen calculated an 1880s global temperature based on less than 10% of the Earth’s surface.
SG: How far is Tallahassee from Chicago?
SG: How much effect does a temperature at location (A) have on the temperature at gridpoint (B) if they are 1200km apart in the GISS model?
Is the answer ZERO?
Yes, the answer is zero. SG is a maroon. And he can’t calculate measurement uncertainties any better than he can calculate distances.
Forgive me for jumping into your distraction but curiosity has overcome quiescence. Why all the drama/hate Kevin? Is this more of an emotional issue for you than scientific?
If GISS ‘models’ don’t consider elevation, latitude, reduced data input over time or UHI effect, wouldn’t their results have zero credibility? Perhaps I misunderstood and that is what you meant by “ZERO”. If so, I apologize in advance.
Kevin – you’re still saying the weight is 67% at 400 km. The distance between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is 400 km. BIG difference in climate. BIG difference in temperatures and their variability.
Where is the rigor? Where are the mathematical equations which say this is all kosher? What is the spatial frequency spectrum? Are we even close to satisfying the sampling theorem?
Apparently, none of this technical stuff is known. It all appears to be seat-of-the-pants, ad hoc, “it appeared to work for simulated data which automatically fit all the assumptions, so it’s OK”.
From: http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/usa-distance-chicago-to-tallahassee.htm “Approximate distance in miles from Chicago Illinois to Tallahassee Florida is 808 miles or 1300.07 Kilometers” How far do you think it is Kevin?
@J Calvert: Ummm … I think it’s approximately 1300km. You apparently haven’t read: Hansen’s Magical 1200km
Steven Goddard
When asked how far Tallahassee was from Chicago …. well, you can imagine the silence
Of course, even if Tallahassee were 1199km from Chicago the analogy would be worthless, because the station-area model used by GISS decreases linearly to zero at 1200km. So at 1199km Tallahassee would have an effect indistinguishable from zero on the gridpoint containing Chicago.
Why don’t you slow down and start using your brain for a change? It is 1200km from Tallahassee to Chicago.
I have already answered that question, despite the fact that I drove nearly 1200km today.
1200 km.
1200km? Is this the ‘new math’ they’re always talking about? As J Calvert has pointed out, the distance from Tallahassee to Chicago is 1300km.
You are a genuine moron, Kevin.
Metropolitan Chicago is huge and has a diameter in excess of 100km.
As usual, you completely miss the point. You can’t extrapolate temperatures across 1200km, and your intellectual dishonesty and closed mindedness is simply pathetic.
@Hugh K: Yes, you’ve misunderstood. Calculate the distance from Chicago to Tallahassee, then go read SG’s Hansen’s Magical 1200km
Next read: GISS analysis of surface temperature change
Then perhaps we’ll be talking from the same set of facts.
Each of those issues is addressed and accounted for by GISS. Anyone who believes otherwise is willfully ignorant. The paper detailing the methodology is available for all to read.
You are a seriously dense person.
http://www.real-science.com/1200-km-tallahassee-chicago
@SG: Closer
What’s the error bar on your ruler +75, -0 km?
LOL. What a hoot. Can’t admit you’re wrong, eh?
So at 1200+ km, how much effect does it have, considering the linear weighting is zero at 1200km?
Infitesimal? Non-zero?
Or just plain ZERO?
Zero it is.
Pick a better example next time. Don’t use ‘Ruler’ it’s rather imprecise. Try:
http://www.distance-cities.com/ or
http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/
You are completely full of shit. Google Earth is very precise, within a few metres.
I believe this is the USS Skate all over again
And you claim to be an expert at graphics processing
There was a bug in Google Earth that led to incorrect distances. I believe it was corrected in version 6.0.2.2074 of 23 March 2011.
I’ve just used Google Earth on my computer and it comes out to 1295km. You need to upgrade.
Are you a complete idiot?
Chicago is not a single point and the grid cells used by GISS cover huge areas. Your argument is completely specious, irrelevant and a mindless distraction from the issue at hand.
Rural US Sites Show No Temperature Increase Since 1900
Using data downloaded from NASA GISS and picking rural sites near, but not too near, to urban sites, a comparison has been made of the temperature trend over time of the rural sites compared to those of the urban sites. 28 pairs of sites across the U.S. were compared. The paired rural site is from 31 to 91 km from the urban site in each pair. The result is that urban and rural sites were similar in 1900, with the urban sites slightly higher. The urban sites have shown an increase in temperatures since then. The rural sites show no such temperature increase and appear to be generally unchanging with only ups and downs localized in time. Over a 111 year time span, the urban sites temperatures have risen to be about 1.5C warmer than the rural sites. So, the much touted rising temperatures in the U.S. are due to the urban heat island effect and not due to a global warming such as has been proposed to be caused by human emissions of CO2 due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rural-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html
Hey, climate data is only to be handled by authorized, trained
monkeespersonnel; you are not a bona fida climate scientist and must not inspect the data.Well, SG sure can’t be trusted with map data.
Wow!
Questioning data.
Like … wow!
Is that allowed?
Fredric Dennis Williams: “A more unbiased view would be that the data are incomplete, but the scientist made a sincere effort to describe a phenomenon based on the limited data available.” Could what follows be why the date is not available? It seems that the data is not available because it is not what some are wanting to use to make their case and that spells fraud.
“Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.”
“Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
“If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.”
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/according-to-ncdcs-own-data-2010-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-usa-nor-even-a-tie/
“Before Hansen tampered with the data, the 1880s were nearly as warm in the US as they were in the 1990s.”
Do you mean, “Before Hansen tampered with the data, the 1880s were nearly as warm in the US as
they were inthe 1990s”?Hansen is the exact equivalent in the 21st century of the theocratic rulers of the medieval period who threw folks like Copernicus and Galileo in jail for daring to counter their “official government position” with actual FACTS. He will eventually be shown the error of his ways– I just hope it happens before it’s too late (i.e. before his enviro-Gestapo throws US in jail!)
Tinfoil hat alert!
“He is missing data from at least 0.70 of the land surface during the 19th century”
I’m assuming that’s 70%. Is it really that much? That’s HUGE.
Wow…Climatology really shows its ugly face in the person of Mr. O’Neill here… yuk…the hate and fanaticism drips from his messages…
Hey just wanted to mention something. The title of your post seem to be running off the screen in IE9. I’m not sure if this is something to do with my internet browser but I thought I’d post to let you know. Hope you get it fixed quickly.