As of 1999, temperatures were going the wrong direction for 70 years, and something had to be done about it.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
James Hansen and USHCN fixed this in 2000, and made temperatures do what they were supposed to do.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.gif
After the adjustment, 1934 and 1998 got relatively shifted by 0.7C. A move which would make Bernie Madoff jealous.
So how did they do this? Mainly by adding on to post 1960 temperatures, as seen below.
Tree rings didn’t agree with the phony adjustments, and didn’t show any increase in temperatures after 1960. So Michael Mann had to step in with his nature trick. He replaced the tree ring data post 1960 with the adjusted thermometer data. Then he blamed his and Hansen’s junk science on CO2 affecting the trees.
And this doesn’t even address getting rid of the MWP ….
I’m sure that all these simultaneous manipulations going on ten years ago were completely unrelated, because we now know that the hockey team never communicated or exchanged e-mails.
thank you for this…….I needed something I could link….and this is exactly what I was looking for
Looks like Hansen will have to do it again RSN. Temperatures still don’t confess.
Can data be water-boarded?
Hansen rigs the numbers every month. For October, RSS and UAH were down sharply but, not surprisingly, GISS showed a rise.
The problem Hansen has now is that he’s run out of headroom. He’s been claiming to mirror the satellite data, but as that flattens out and even declines, he has nowhere to go without blowing his cover. Kind of like PIOMAS in reverse. This was their golden opportunity. They had control of both houses of Congress, the Presidency, their Fakey Bakey “science” tweaked to the far edge of deniable plausibility, and the tailwind of the Socialist media, and they still couldn’t sell it.
So all they can do is print ever more fanatic claims, and begin the brainwashing of children.
Every last one of these frauds should be in the “State Pen” and stripped of their wealth through the proceeds of crime act.
But not before we get a chance to feather ‘n tar these shonks and use up some rotten veges on ‘em.
Then off to the State Penn to be acquainted with “Big Bubba” whom I would personally visit on a regular basis with many cartons of cigarettes.
Hmmm, I’m thinking, should I tell Big Bubba that the key phrase to “action” should be “Hide my decline boy”
I’ve noticed this type of posting several times. I’ve never seen Hansen and Co. explaination as to WHY they add this 0.5 Deg “correction”. If anything there should be a negative correction for increasing UHI effects. Can anyone point out their explaination for this positive incease.
“Can anyone point out their explaination for this positive incease?”
There you go:
United States Historical Climatology Network
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
All the data, all the code, all the manipulations, together with references to the papers in which they were described. (Note that there is now a Version 2 of the USHCN).
“I’ve never seen Hansen and Co. explaination as to WHY they add this 0.5 Deg ‘correction’.”
Applying the Time of Observation adjustment resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960′s to the 1990′s.
The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980′s … created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980′s.
Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980.
“If anything there should be a negative correction for increasing UHI effects.”
There is:
Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record.
What’s hysterical….is that they added a 1/2 degree
…then claim that global warming has only increased temps by 1/2 a degree
Strange how the adjustments are always upwards!
Also according to Muller, 27% of the GHCN stations are located in towns of more than 50000. I don’t know the US figures but I would be surprised if they much different ( and don’t forget airport sites).
As Muller admits UHI can add maybe 3C per century at individual stations, it is clearly a nonsense to suggest 0.1F is enough to cover this problem.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/mullers-problem-with-uhi/
Thanks, seems like they’ve exaggerated the correction for time of day and definitely decreased the correction for UHI increase.
It’s science Tim; but not as we know it, not as we know it captain.
M4GW have a new song: Drill Baby Drill!
Very nice! Glad to see those guys going strong!
The real climate deniers are those who try to hide declines, warm periods and their work. All so they can deny natural variabilty.
Denying the 1930′s and denying the 1960-1980 cold period are an integral part of this scam. The climate had to be shown as even and dependable until the magic 350 PPM was exceeded. The obvious fact is that weather was far more extreme and damaging in the 1930′s than it has been recently.
Look Steve you got them dead to rights on this; but so what? Tomorrow morning a few of us will have read your post and agree with you as always — but hell, I already knew about this.
How do we get the public to SEE this?
Unfortunately the “public” cannot remember that snow was supposed to be a thing of the past by now.
I notice the temp anomaly drops from about 1.5 to about 1.25 (about -0.25) for 1933 after the Hansen correction but the “Difference between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets” graph shows only about a -0.1 adjustment. Conversely, the 1998 temp anomaly rises from about 0.9 to about 1.35 (about 0.45) while the USHCN Difference graph shows a difference of about maybe 0.52 (eyeballing is imprecise, to say the least!).
Why don’t the temp anomalies shown in the revised temp anomaly graph match the changes show in the USHCN Difference graph?
Correction. Last sentence should be asking:
Why do the differences in the temp anomalies shown in the original and revised temp anomalies graphs not match the differences shown in the USHCN graph?
So based primarily on the final graph, it looks like either something funny is going on or some time around 1960 we lost the art of measuring temperatures. Why would temperature measurements in the recent decades be so far off that they require that level of adjustment?