NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Hansen has been deleting cooling trends all over the planet. The image above compares current GISS 1950-1998 trends, with those he published in 1999. He has erased historical cooling trends (blue) in North America, South America, Africa, the Arctic, Antarctica, and elsewhere.
He also has created data in the southern hemisphere which didn’t previously exist. Note how the area of grey has shrunk.
The color scales are shifted, but the legends are located below the maps – and you can see that the values have changed. The circle over Africa has changed from a -0.5C to -0.3C cooling trend, into a warming trend.
HOW TO UNDO NASA TAMPERING
Looks like HIS grey area has shrunk…
Looks like the scale has changed… that could explain part of the color shift. How he gets new data where none existed before is a bigger problem, however.
Hansen seemed to eradicate any below normal areas over land. There must be plenty of weather stations within those areas. Someone should check those out to verify the extent of data manipulation (fraud).
Looks like the whole thing has been toned down, note that all the red and dark red areas are gone.
Well, he’s changed the color scale so the two graphs are not comparable.
The scales are different, but it is no problem comparing them.
If course there is a problem comparing them!
The shade of color on one chart is a different temperature to the same color on the other.
Would you like to correct this or is this going to be my latest post on Really Sciency?
Lazarus. You are a complete idiot. The scales are provided at the bottom of each map, and most high school students would be able to figure out how to do the comparisons.
Sorry Steve but you are not being very rational.
First you ‘comparison’ involves two charts with different scales that ‘there is no problem comparing’! Is this really how you think scientific analysis are carried out?
Second you say that ‘The circle over Africa has changed from a -0.5C to -0.3C cooling trend, into a warming trend.’
The trend has not changed – not changed at all – only the scale.
But if you look at the scary dark red patch on one chart you can see it is 1.5C – 2.0C. On the other Chart the same area in now 1C – 2C and is a far less scary orange. So you must believe that those pesky scientists have now changed from a warming trend to a cooling trend for higher temperatures?
And thirdly I doubt if Hansen directly had a lot to do with altering the scale.
The good news is that your flawed ‘comparison’ was picked up by a couple of people before me – so it seems that your readership is attracting more truly sceptical people – a good thing wouldn’t you agree?
Lazarus. You are a complete idiot. If you don’t know how to interpret map scales, I can’t help you.
I think we already have ample evidence on which one of us has troubling interpreting scales.
Do you honestly see nothing wrong with comparing charts displaying different scales, then making assertions of different trends that don’t exist in reality?
Lazy-R-Us – here is some advice you REALLY need to adhere to.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln 16th president of the United States of America
Lazarus, Steve’s right. I was looking at the two graphs for all of 3-4 minutes when I realized taking the color scale differences into account made them easily comparable. And Steve’s also right about certain areas going from a (-) trend to a (+) trend, while in other areas data that didn’t exist before seem’s to’ve suddenly been created out of thin air. So your big complaint between the two color scale differences is that in the older one a deep dark red used to represent a max of 2.0C, while in the newer one it’s an orangish color that now represents a max of 2C??… And you think this makes a significant difference, how??!!… … Lazarus, perhaps you should go take some remedial science classes before you try to criticize others’ ability to interpret and compare data & graphs.
@ 2Cents Worth
WARNING
Before you or anyone else attempts to teach L how to read these graphs, I suggest you and they try teaching a chimp to solve a Rubik’s Cube first. This will help determine if you/they have the patience and stamina required for the Hurculean effort that will be needed. It can be done but it isn’t going to be easy. I tried once and almost passed out from exhaustion. Never again.
OK guys, I dislike Hansen as much as the next guy but except for the change in grey area there is not really that much difference in the 2 maps. I know one has big red blobs and less blue but if you look at the color charts below each map you will find that the scale has changed and not the reported temperatures.
I haven’t seen you post here before, but you need to look closer. The values have changed, and in fact the circle in Africa has changed from a -0.5 to -0.3 cooling trend, into a warming trend.
Please put some effort in before posting FUD.
My first post… be gentle
Might I suggest that both Steve and Lazarus are right, but about different things?
The meat of the issue — changes in the *data* — are there, and can be teased out by careful examination. Steve’s right.
Lazarus is also right that the different *presentation* (scales, color coding, etc.) are confusing. While Steve isn’t the source of these images (IIRC), for the lay public it would be far better to present these manipulations in an apples/apples comparison. This eliminates the possibility of the sort of meta-discussion we’re having, which is distraction more than substance.
Proof of my point here is the gray areas we have been discussing; the comparison is direct, and the question of “where did the data come from, you (Hansen) fraud?” stays on point.
In the end, those of us paying attention to the actual science and data must persuade an illiterate public just as the AGW gang must.
They’re doing a far better job of making their claims and information digestible. We’d be doing better to pay attention to criticisms like Lazarus’, rather than attacking him — wrong-headed as he may be about the big picture.
Lazarus point is idiotic. People do conversions from one scale to another all the time.
dwallersv says:
Might I suggest that both Steve and Lazarus are right, but about different things?
Unfortunately Steve is also wrong about a lot;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/03/goddard-tampering-with-data-all-over.html
Steve’s definitely right; you’ve got to look more closely. Whites are zero in both charts, and even darker blues are turning white in the new chart. Hansen might say he’s not “tampering”, . . . he’s “correcting”. But there’s already a question why these two graphs are so different:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1976/plot/gistemp/from:1976
Almost a half a degree difference. And the current satellite anomaly is actually negative! Maybe these “corrections” are part of the explanation.
How do warmistas explain why the graphs are different?
Jack:
Warmists claim the graphs show the same thing.
Actually the warmists are correct, the graphs show the same thing: GIGO. Neither has any relationship to reality. Well maybe a minor relationship. With all those various temperatures they probably got a few correct.
Hansen the master shroud waver for AGW climate change, can’t leave the data alone cause it’s an inconvenient truth.
Believe him, he got a computer model to sell you.
When is Sen. Inhofe going to call him to testify? FBI?
Part of the problem is the scale he chose for the newer map was made to deceive. What could be .3 degrees cooling on the old map could also be .2 degrees cooling or .2 degrees warming on the new map. The scale also made the warming appear to be less in the hotter areas. I would not say he tampered with the data as much as he cherry picked the scale of the map to obfuscate the extent of past cooling and warming in order to make today’s data look more ominous.
These scales make absolutely no sense at all when people are trying to prove that a 1/10 of one degree change in a decade is caused by man and of any real concern.
Excuse me, but “Cherry Picking” IS tampering with data.
Your recent posts seem to be trying to water down the impact of this fraud in almost the same way he is trying to water down the data.
Fraud is fraud, and the intent of manipulating the data is obvious, but you seem to be saying, “well, he didn’t put a LOT of poison in your coffee … just barely enough to kill you.”
Global surface temperature records are all one needs to realize “Tampering” or “Fraud” is underlying the whole concept of AGW.
Without stuff like this there would be no warming to even consider.
You might want to consider that the graphs are not actually showing the same data:
http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/03/goddard-tampering-with-data-all-over.html
Steve
Have we still go access to the tabular data from 1998?
Paul
Of course Dr. James Hansen does not let some data out to the public, his employer, or to the taxpayers. That’s because he above such pettiness.
More at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Believe that and he has an expensive computer model he’s trying sell you.
Can Hansen run his model backwards and reproduce the weather from, say, 10 years ago? 20 years?
Probably not.
With enough parameters he can get anything from his model. Even a Flying Pig!!!!
This is all perfectly sensible. Remember Mann’s removal of proxies that didn’t calibrate with the instrumental record? Well this is the same thing. If the station record doesn’t match the obviously warming trend, it must be duff and so it should be removed.
Honestly people, you know nothing!
/sarcasm
If the issue is settled science, according to the AGW mob, why to we still spend tens of billions every year trying to prove it?
They are not trying to prove it, John Tyndall effectively did this in the 1800s. What they are doing is reducing uncertainties and tracking and projecting effects.
ROFLMAO!
Laz, you are so funny!
You are right! They are not trying to provve anything; they are trying to HIDE THE DECLINE. They are trying to hide the cooling trend of the last 15 years when there has been no warming at all!
IMO you miss the point of John Tyndall ground breaking research. He did prove CO2 would absorb IR energy over a very, very narrow frequency band. Never did he write or say that CO2 would be a MAJOR influence on the weather or climate. In FACT quite the opposite, he did IMAGINE that it could be otherwise but this was NEVER proved!
There is NO proof of climate change forcing (+ feedback) caused by CO2.
An even bigger problem is that all these maps use a projection which distorts areas enormously at higher latitudes. The hot spots over Alaska, NW Canada, NE Russia and the Antarctic Peninsula would look far less threatening with an equal area projection. (eg Mollweide).
“An even bigger problem is that all these maps use a projection”
Not all of them. Satellites are used and any projection is consistent with their measurements.
Something is definitely used, however it is probably more imagination than reality. If those are GISS surface temeratures you do not know WTF you are talking about.
I’m not referring to the measurements per se, but to the _visual_ impression conveyed by the map. The cartographic projection used in these maps greatly magnifies the apparent area of places at higher latitudes; e.g Greenland appears to be about 4 times larger than the Indian subcontinent but it’s actually only half the area.
They should either use an equal area projection, or add a supplemental histogram (or pie chart) showing the total area corresponding to each interval on the temperature anomaly scale.
Where is NASA in all of this ?
At what point do they question Hansen impacting their credibility ?
With all the budegts cuts coming down the line, you would think they cut ties with him because it will impact their ability to gain funding.
Hansen is a NASA hero, he came up with a scheme to increase funding when it was in danger of being cut, His 20+ year dog and pony show is still attracting lots of government money.
“Fudge”….the only recipe in the Hansen Cookbook.
It’s obfuscation, no other explanation. (Hey, that might be a nifty slogan for Hansen!)
Seriously, if I ever did a manipulation in my forty year pharmaceutical career, and submitted such data to anyone, much less the FDA, I would have been in the Keaster for Easter. Just one time and my career would have been over.
The thing is, I was never even tempted to prove an hypothesis with bogus data, as has Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, etc. Never would have crossed my mind. Our teams always had the mind set to find out what Nature had wrought. It was a puzzle that needed to be solved, and if done properly under the scientific method, that was its own reward. Follow Nature’s true threads, and the truth opened before you.
That is the answer!
“obfuscation, no other explanation”
Hey, I feel a rap song coming along.
The sad part is that even if the Republicans take the entire government in November, Hansen will still be allowed to creep around, taking huge taxpayer-funded grants and lying and cheating and making up BS stories the whole time. No one will stop him. The only way to get rid of him is to hope he drops dead of a heart attack.
What puzzles me is how Dr Hansen has managed to survive in his job after all this time.
It sounds like he is an untouchable. For some reason, no matter what wrong doing he has allegedly been involved in, he survives. Now why is that?
I think the answer may involve the word ‘allegedly ‘.
Laz:
You are a poor history student.
There is no allegedly involved with Hansen.
Oh Em Gi! NASA is lying to you, Lazarus! But why? What are they trying to hide? Who is the Real Author? Get out your tinfoil codpiece!
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999
Dag, this is tough. NASA put James Hansen’s name on that as a ruse. It was all to fool us. I wonder who really works at NASA trying to impugn the legacy of great scientists by publishing horse dung under fake names?
NASA Official: James E. Hansen
Oh shit.
He created a need for additional NASA funding, no matter the methods used.
@ “It sounds like he is an untouchable. For some reason, no matter what wrong doing he has allegedly been involved in, he survives. Now why is that?”
Hansen is becoming the Cindy Sheehan of climate politics, except that Sheehan had a much bigger set of nads than Hansen.. Hansen was/is a loyal political useful idiot that was instrumental in helping Al Gore hatch a plot to enrich himself by executing the ENRON strategy of perpetuating doom to create a new market for carbon trading. Gore and Hansen were very close at one time but eventually Hansen realized that trading carbon wasn’t providing any tangible results for lowering CO2. His idealism eventually got the better of him and Hansen stopped supporting Gore’s cap and trade scheme.
Al and his Goldman Sachs buddies were already getting filthy rich from the ENRON scheme as cap and trade had been established in other countries that were run by brain dead UN types that find Al Gore to be the smartest man in the room when they are with him (scary). Gore had made over $100 million and was greatful for Hansen’s help so there was no reason to be vindictive when Hansen began to seperate from Gore because Hansen was easy enough to isolate politically. So when Hansen stopped supporting cap and trade, he was just ignored, put out to pasture like Sheehan was.
This can be seen by the fact that nobody in the Obama administration listens to Hansen, heck they don’t even speak to him. They’re all too busy getting rich too, to talk to Hansen. 5 people in the Obama admin have direct ties to 23 green energy companies being funded by US taxpayers via Obama “green” initiatives. As long as Hansen keeps his mouth shut and doesn’t make waves about the corruption in the Obama administration, he will keep his job.
James Hansen is a sad figure in this Kabuki for having allowed himself to be made a useful idiot reminiscent of Cindy Sheehan’s rise and fall as a useful idiot. Yes Hansen has gotten rich too but it was chump change compared to Gore and Obama’s friends, and now Hansen has no seat at the table of power and is left hanging out with the protesting morons on the street who are getting arrested for the “green cause”. Rich politicians love useful idiots, Sandra Fluke for instance, so Hansen is beloved and protected.
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
Abraham Lincoln
Is that why so many in the US believe their lives are at stake from Afghanistan.. oops! Iraq… oops! I mean Libya, nope, erm, Syria to get at Iran?
Baaahhh!
To do this, he must be in control of the data. How can this be? Sorry if I am being dumb, but I can’t get my head round HOW he can 1. do this & 2. get away with it.
He can’t. Hansen is like the bogey man on here.
No your the boogie mann here septic face Lazararararse.
“Hansen is like the bogey man”.
Err, haven’t you read the wiki page on him? Everything he guessed on in all his career has come to dust when the empirical facts came to light. We can speak of any planet. (Venus was his pet) to this very place.
His scientific net worth to humanity is in minus figures. A para$ite amongst the people.
I’m sorry but the true temperature data over Russia shows far colder than it actually was in 1950. Under the communist system the state supplied fuel allowance was increased when they reported lower temperatures.
if you check the data, the numbers magically jumped up within a year when the state was not giving fuel out. They had to pay for it themselves.
In other words the temperatures were higher in the 1940′s than it really was.
In other words the temperatures were higher in the 1940′s than recorded.
Absolutely.
They had a very good reason to claim it was colder in the past. If they didn’t, the fuel share went to another town.