Paul Homewood has found a third Reykjavik graph. NASA is making repeated huge adjustments of not only the relative positions of different years, but the absolute temperatures as well. There is no algorithm which will justify a late alteration of absolute temperature.
Normalized by y-axis above. Note now the past has been dramatically cooled, the recent huge shift in absolute temperatures, and the bizarre behaviour of the last two years.
Normalized by the year 2000 above (scale is identical, but y-axis is shifted)
Paul finds evidence that the data is being manually tampered with :
Yesterday while finishing off my post “NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office”, by chance, I took another look at the latest GISS graph for Reykjavik, which is shown above. It showed, just as it had last week, that the temperature in 2003 was much higher than 1939 and 1941, which as we now know from the Iceland Met Office is not true. However something else looked wrong, that I could not put my finger on.
Fortunately, however, I had kept a printout of last week’s dataset and eventually I realised something else had changed. Effectively the scale had been shifted down, so that every singly year became about a degree cooler.
One can ponder on the reasons for this change, but the consequence is abundantly clear – GISS temperatures for recent years, including 2003, now match the actual temperatures recorded by the Iceland Met Office. (Last week we discovered that GISS/GHCN had adjusted temperatures upwards by about a degree since 1970 – for full story see here). However, as the shape of the graph has not altered, this means that years prior to 1970 are shown as much cooler than they really were.
Game over. This is not legitimately handled data. People are trying to cover their tracks, and making a mess of it. Did someone phone in from Iceland and say “Sorry, me and my predecessors over the last century reported temperatures exactly one degree too low to GISS, but the correct temperatures to the Iceland Met Office. Except for the last two years, when we weren’t messing with the Americans.”
Yesterday we found out that NASA is reporting detailed temperatures from the interior of Antarctica – almost a decade before the first human set foot there. There is no question that someone at NASA is fabricating data.
NASA : Lying About The Past | Real Science
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
Richard Muller says GISS data is all golden.
That doesn’t even come close to “trying to cover their tracks”.. it’s more like jumping up and down, waving to the hunter and screaming “over here!!.. over here!!”.
Has anyone contacted the OIG?
http://oig.nasa.gov/
“Public law 95-452, known as the Inspector General Act of 1978, created independent audit and investigative units, called Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) at 63 Federal agencies.
The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent audits, reviews, and investigations of NASA programs and operations to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to assist NASA managers in promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.”
Under the O’Freeloader administration, Inspectors General are on notice to keep their mouths shut, or face dismissal.
Perhaps they need to call into GHCN as well. They told me a month ago they were looking into the Iceland adjustments, but still can’t explain them.
Apparently a Google Summer Student rewrote their algorithms last July and it is this new programme that created all these adjustments.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/ghcn-adjustments-in-icelandstill-no-explanation-from-noaa/
Hansen’s entire story is dependent on producing warming in the Arctic relative to 70 years ago. Blaming this on a student is really disgusting. Hansen needs to man up and tell us what he is doing.
Hansen is a world class weenie, they are incapable of manning up, unless it is Manning up the hysteria.
Paul,
How do we get your message out the the public if the mainstream media refuses to air it?
I believe this is very big news, maybe bigger than Climategate because it is blatant, unmitigated, undeniable fraud. But if no one hears about it except our little band of skeptics, what good is it?
Andy – I’m sure you know as well as I do that the media is just another arm of the team.
That said, I think our only hope is with the courts.
I just sent an email to the Competitive Enterprise Institute that currently has a lawsuit against NASA working it’s way through the process. I posted quite a few links to Steven’s excellent graphs demonstrating the manipulation of data at GISS/NASA. I will update when I get a reply.
I suggest doing the same with any other similar lawsuits others might know about. Arm them with the facts….
What about Fox News? They might be interested.
FOX News is doing all they can Andy but I’m sure you understand how FOX is looked upon by the court of public opinion (other than preaching to the choir – which reassuringly is of considerable size). Unfortunately FOX isn’t going to stop these frauds.
Our courts seem to be the only means to accomplish that outcome. Granted, not much of one but it seems like our only resource. It just blows my mind that the DOJ is defending NASA in a FOIA case. That would be like the DOJ doing something as silly as going after a border state for defending illegal immigration laws or sending illegal guns to cartels in war-torn Mexico….oh, wait…
Regardless, until an example is made by the courts that ‘scientific’ fraud will not be tolerated, rational individuals can claim to win a few hills but not win the battle – i.e.: the scam will continue.
As I’ve stated so many times before, it is really sad that is the reality – the environment suffers. There is so much we the people could do to take care of our environment but all our tax dollars are being pissed away on lies and cronyism in place of common-sense solutions to being good stewards of nature.
I know, I know, AGW heretics aren’t supposed to care about the environment….
Hugh,
My own personal experience is that the courts are there, not for justice, but to bat away pesky flies who have a grievance against the establishment. Maybe there are some good , fair judges out there somewhere, but they are probably very hard to come by.
I agree, any reasonable attempt to mitigate pollution and protect the environment is fine with me. We shouldn’t stop progress or refuse to exploit new sources of energy either.
Fox News should be informed of this blatant temperature manipulation scam, if not done so already. Yes, they have their bias, but they do reach many millions of viewers. Also this story is straightforward enough for the average person to grasp very easily. It is also something that conservatives can talk about during this upcoming election campaign.
I wish I knew Andy.
ICECAP, the website that Jo Bastardi gets involved with, ran the first part of this story a couple of weeks ago.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/P5/
and Marc Morano ran with it too.
I guess we just gotta keep putting things like this out there.
Yeah ICECAP – the know-nothings. I like their take on PDSI:
And they link to this graph.
The only problem the know-nothings at ICECAP apparently don’t know that a negative PDSI means DRYER not wetter. So they show as evidence a graph that shows a dramatic INCREASE in drought conditions. LOL.
A little bird just chirped on my shoulder. I’m not Dr Doolittle, but I could have sworn it sounded like, “Know a man by the company he keeps ….” Goddard/Moron Doh!/ICECAP …. hmm?
Kevin, one of the most annoying things in the world is a know-nothing who thinks he is on to something.
We need to find whistleblowers.
The False Claims Act specifically covers fraudulent acts committed to obtain federal funds.
Lying about data, faking data, making up data would all be covered.
“The Act establishes liability when any person or entity improperly receives from or avoids payment to the Federal government (tax fraud is excepted). The Act prohibits:
Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented a false claim for payment or approval;
Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;”
Whistleblowers who reveal to the Dept of Justice details of fraudulent actions in government grants are eligible to be rewarded with a large percentage of the funds recovered.
If we want to have an impact, forget the media.
Use your networks of contacts to find people who work in the labs putting out this data. Recruit whistleblowers.
It’s the only way that the truth will ever out.
Andy, I am in total agreement with you. I am going to do everything I can to assist.
BTW, I happen to own the domain name ItsWorseThanWeThought.com … any suggestions would should be done with it? Anyone want to assist?
A VERY broad expose’ on ALL of the Hansen temperature activities, very detailed and very easy to read (for the laymen), may be one idea.
Anyone else?
sorry, meant to say “what should be done with it”
They wore out the “dog at my homework” excuse. The updated , get out of jail free, excuse is now “a Google student rewrote my algorithms”. Should we laugh or cry?
Is this an example of “academic freedom” in action that climate scientists keep claiming is being threatened?
Is it just me or do these look like mini “hockey sticks”? Did GISS pull a reverse “trick” and replace past thermometer readings with carefully selected Mannian approved tree ring data?
I believe the first man to set foot on Antarctica was Jules-Sébastien-César Dumont d’Urville in 1840.
Apparently he reported back to James Hansen that c’est un peu frais.
Hansen used his skill and judgement to convert this to a temperature with an accuracy within 0.001 degrees centigrade.
He was not in the “interior” of Antarctica.
Lol!
Hansen replied “J’ajusterai”
I think what he actually said was ‘Y’a pas plus frais’
(Fisherman’s Friend ad in French ski resorts)
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
More likely: “Damn, I’ve been cooking data for 15 hours straight… am so very tired… Darn it! That last one was a bit too obvious. Oh well, maybe nobody will notice. Whatever. I’m going home, where I will drink a glass of baby-blood, and sleep like the undead. Be back tomorrow, as fresh a month old corpse.”
Nothing short of public shaming and a stint laying face down under Big Bubba in cell block D for this crooked, lying cheating fraudster of a man will satisfy me.
I can’t think of anything more tragic than this man quietly retiring with the mini fortune he fraudulently acquired.
lol, yes, the interior of the Antarctic….. I recall a hubub between Steig and Jeff ID, turns out the interpretations were fairly subjective because there wasn’t any reliable long term measurements!
What they have done is what we in exploration geology do all the time: we use shallow control (i.e. recent temperature) that is abundant, to provide a pattern for deep control (i.e. past temperature) that is scarce. The theoretical basis is that processes in the present reflect those that occurred in the past (a refinement of a 19th century idea).
The idea is valid in exploration geology for three reasons, but fails for one.
1) water erodes, rivers flow and deposit, carbonate organisms grow and secrete now as before and as forever, though at different rates and locations, due to fundamental chemistry, physics and biology;
2) comparisons where there are detailed shallow and deep well controls show that much of what is deep “telegraphs” up through the section. This is because buried hills create slight highs at surface, and water only needs the slightest of differences to change its course.
3) the technique leads to “prospects”, i.e. places that we can focus our attention and additional work, rather than working blindly. The net result is that we find stuff more efficiently and cost-effectively than working randomly.
It fails because the present isn’t always sufficiently tied to the past. Some types of oil pools in some places ALWAYS have a shallow “hill” above them, but not all shallow hills have an oil pool below them. If A, then B, if B, not necessarily A.
Hansen’s use of present data to infill the past has the same positives and the same negatives. It is also, importantly, somewhat flawed from a fundamental IPCC/CAGW position: the present is NOT a reflection of the past. It is claimed that CO2 has replaced natural conditions with manmade ones. Therefore whatever we may see as relationships in the modern world are not those of the prior world: the Arctic heats up because WE caused it, not because it is a natural place to get warmer during a heating event.
There is also a fundamental flaw when it comes to computerization, i.e. the modelling. Without data, the models are unable to function. When I/we map without sufficient data, our mental “models” drive our choices. There are always choices: highs/warming on the left or the right are often equally justified. What makes us decide is which generates a prospect and which does not. Same as the climate models: the Antarctic warms up, or it does not, in 1895. Warming it generates your “prospect”, i.e. the CAGW your study is (paid to be) studying. Cooling it does not.
Without data, computers do NOT generate the result: the human operators do. You can say what you will, but it is the human operator who determines whether the physical systems he puts in his program take coolness or warmness to places in which he has no data. He may say “prior work shows it goes that way”, and be correct, however there are variables he does not have – as evidenced by the recent terrible cold in Europe.
The models generated produce one year at a time. From these individual years patterns are made. At least that is what they tell us. In fact, the patterns pre-date the years. The modellers determine how things go, then put out the details on a year-by-year basis. They then tweak the results to get rid of outliers, to make the pattern “reasonable”. In exploration geology we do the same. We call it “iterative mapping”: we make a map from the patterns of one map, then compare the second with the first, adjust the first, and then adjust the second. The result is an “internally consistent” idea, i.e. prospect (actually, in reality many mappers are lazy and make makes individually and in isolation. Just as climate “scientists” do. The net result is the rediculous prospect that his 20m thick but only shows up as a 3m bulge. For climate scientists it is the 15 mm/yr sealevel rise without a new Mississippi River of meltwater cascading off the Greenland icesheets.)
You can take from exploration geological mapping these two lessons about climate science mapping: what you get about the past is determined by your belief that today mirrors what was in conjunction with what you – not a machine – figures should be. The best you can get is something that is internally consistent. This does not mean that it reflects reality – which is why the best of us drill what we call “dry holes” – but that the data we have cannot be shown to be INCONSISTENT with our idea.
Climate scientists – and their parishoners, like Al Gore – misunderstand internal consistency with representation of reality. Although they like to invoke chaos theory for the future warmaggedon, they fail to use chaos theory to provide past variations at variance with their models. The use of proxies (tree rings, especially) is the equivalent of using shallow control to determine the status of deeper structures in geology: it may be the best you have, but it is not a substitute for real data, and is of the A=B, B not necessarily A variety.
The warmists really, really hate geologists wading into the CAGW discussion. The computer specialists also hate us doing it, as we are soft. True: we have little data, but what we have is very “hard”. Those with computers – like geophysicists, actually – have a lot of data, but it is “soft”. But a lot of soft data, however expertly managed, as in Hansen’s GISS data for 1894, does not equal even a few more hard data points. Geologists know this every time they make a map or sit in a technical meeting. The engineers know it even more: just because all your maps “say” the prospect is there, doesn’t mean it is.
There is more going on and has gone on, at a detail that is very, very important, than we can ever determine, no matter how hard we look. It is like a car sunk in a very dirty swimming pool on which you shine a light: no matter how bright a light you shine, you can only determine some things about it, as the reflection gets worse and worse. But if you think it is a Corvette and not a Prius, you’ll probably be able to find enough reason to bid appropriately for a Corvette.
Doug – Nice perspective. I occasionally can bring a relevant medical example into the CAGW discussion, but your field intersects climate research much more than mine. I’ve seen too many examples of money corrupting medical research which eventually trickles down to the way physicians practice, and patients have died as a result.
Dr. John,
I still am shocked that when OxyContin came out in the 1990′s that “experts” with big credentials were claiming it was safe and non addictive. I wish I could find that paperwork. How many people are now hopelessly addicted or even dead from that misinformation?
My best friend is now dead because of this. He had never consumed alcohol or an addictive drug in his life before some quack (who eventually went to prison) prescribed OxyContin in large doses. I thought the FDA was supposed to be protecting people from unsafe medications.
Sorry for your friend. Unfortunately, that’s just one example and one the lay public can understand. There are many other examples that deal with rather technical topics that are not generally known. Some are from drug companies, others from industry expert panels or govt agencies/panels (e.g. USPSTF). It is difficult to sort out the truth from the garbage. There are many different special interests who manipulate things.
Dr. John,
Why is the FDA not doing their job? It probably wasn’t always this bad.
No simple answer. Things actually were worse years ago. The FDA has strengths and weaknesses. Drug companies have sometimes hidden data from docs and the FDA. The FDA is underfunded and has limited resources, and cannot adequately monitor U.S. manufacturers, let alone overseas drug companies. The FDA also monitors medical devices, food safety, etc.
If you are interested, a collection of perspective articles from New England Journal of Medicine gives a good overview of the problem and challenges:
http://www.nejm.org/search?q=fda#qs=%3Fcategory%3Dperspective%26q%3Dfda
Please God, make it a Prius.
Nicely put Doug. I spent many wonderful hours studying geology during the last ice age scare. You are right, warmists hate them some geologists!
Doug, thank you for that!
Well said, and even I could get it!
“Richard Muller says GISS data is all golden.”
Fools gold!
Former corrupt (and convicted) IL Governor Rod Blagojevich called Obama’s former Senate seat “f—— golden.”
Hey Hugh! Don’t forget your congressman, senator and any ‘complaint’ box you can find. We need to be as annoying as the great unwashed masses, and make our voices heard. If enough private citizens complain, they will have to do something. I make it a point to gripe loudly and often. I have contacted the EPA OIG (et al) on numerous occasions and made official complaints of taxpayer and data abuse.
Fight fire with fire.
Adjustment-Gate
I’ve never understood the logic behind adjusting temperature data. I mean, you put a calibrated precision thermometer in a spot that reads the actual temperature of that spot and then you have to adjust it??? Why?
It’s sort of like measuring the height a group of people to get the average height of the group and then some of the people with the rulers start adjusting some of the measured heights of some of the people to come out with a *more accurate* finished product. Give me a break. It looks like scientific fraud to me.
Of course, there may be a logical reason for changing the actual measured temperature readings that I am not aware of (for example, faulty thermometers). But for the life of me, excluding faulty thermometers or similar, I can’t see what it could be…
Hey Kramer! I understand what they say they are attempting to do by making ‘adjustments’, and have no issue with them making ‘adjustments’, just as long as their adjusted data is not presented as anything other than pure speculation, and is not intermingled with real data. Adjusted data should be treated just like models, they are artifacts, meaning that they clearly show manipulation by man.
But never, ever, ever, present manipulated data as raw data, and always make sure anyone viewing it is well aware that it is only someone’s opinion.
Did anyone ever read this article:
[b]IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save[/b]
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
Jennifer Marohasy’s blog wrote about something similar in 2009. Titled “How the US Temperature Record is Adjusted”
If one removes all of the adjustments from the USHCN, our current temperature is about 1/2 degree cooler than in the 1930s.
see:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/
Thanks
JK
This is an incredible story that deserves to get out in the World Media.
It is bigger than Climategate. It blatant, bald-faced, obvious science-fraud.
It is a great piece of detective work by Paul and Steve.
On the bright side, the latest employment statistics show everything is turning out just fantastic under Obama’s leadership! And those stats are really, really “robust.”
Back on topic, sure hope that Climate Depot links to this one! I personally would love to hear the squirming excuse they might come up with to explain this, and it will take some serious pressure to get to that point.
In the meantime, looks like a new word here: “gissed” statistics.
Just looked. It is at Climate Depot, right at the top of the page where it belongs.
Time for Hansen to drag Madoff out of jail to testify on his behalf..
Not surprising, in my opinion.
Does anyone else doubt what this crew might be capable of when global temperatures don’t begin to climb in the next few years? It’s going to be game, set and match for the Hockey Team after another 5 or 10 years at this same global temperature level or lower. And they know it. So how will they protect their careers and their livelihood? Control the data. Alter the data.
Is there another explanation outside of doctoring the data to make the deranged CAGW crowd look good? I mean, is there any rationale for these adjustments at all? Anybody got any ideas? What does the Iceland Met office have to say; or are they saying anything at all…
Most stunning to me is how MSM just ignores this. What is there to gain by supporting these lies?
Found a partial answer here:
http://www.real-science.com/reconstruction-unadjusted-temperatures
But what is Hansen doing altering Icelandic data?
This is so weird.
GregO writes,
“But what is Hansen doing altering Icelandic data?
“This is so weird.”
I actually don’t find it weird at all. It is the far north of the northern hemisphere, the part that the average person is (by a huge margin) most concerned about when it comes to their assessment of global temperature trends.
What weighting is this station given in the calculations of mean temperature for the entire area north of, say, 55 deg. north latitude? Look into it; you might be surprised by what you find.
Keep in mind these data are fed into model runs, as well.
RTF
New tax revenues for a bigger government.
What does the Iceland Met office have to say?
Trausti Jonsson is one of the most respected climatologists in Iceland. He has this to say:-
“In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. In the questions above the year 1965 is mentioned twice. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.
I have been working for more than 25 years in the field of historical climatology and have been guilty of eager overadjustments in the past as well as other data handling crimes. But as I have lived through these sudden large climatic shifts I know that they are very real. “
He has also confirmed to me that the Iceland Met were not advised of these adjustments and don’t accept them, in particular calling the Reykjavik one “grossly in error”.
He has also sent me their official temperature records which confirm the original unadjusted GHCN temperatures were correct.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/icelands-sea-ice-years-disappear-in-ghcn-adjustments/
Hey Hugh K! Yeah, DOJ is not going to be very helpful…
“Open Government Watchdog Names Justice Department as Most Secretive Agency”
“A group dedicated to reducing government secrecy gave its annual worst performance award Tuesday to the Justice Department, the agency President Barack Obama ordered in 2009 to lead his drive to open more government records to the public.
The National Security Archive said the department has prosecuted whistleblowers as leakers of classified information, recycled legal views from the administration of George W. Bush arguing for greater secrecy and charged officials under the Espionage Act for speaking with journalists. The archive said the department also has increased its use of a specific, discretionary Freedom of Information Act exemption whose application Obama ordered federal officials to curtail so more documents would reach the public.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/national-security-archive-names-justice-department-as-most-secretive/?test=latestnews#ixzz1mTkVC6k0
Justice is blind-ing.
I just received a brief reply from my congressman (he owes me, I spent alot of time working on his campaign to unseat a progressive POS), and he is going to review the file I sent and see if there is anything he can do or suggest.
I implore anyone who has their congressman’s ear to make some noise. Squeaky wheels, ya know.
Hugh K says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“FOX News is doing all they can ”
As a loyal FOX News fan I think FOX is only lukewarm on CAGW…. they do not refer to it as a hoax and rarely ever mention it… they actually more ignore the topic rather than anything else. Hannity may occasionally, like once every three months refer to it a a hoax. The only Republican pres. candidate that calls CAGW blatantly false is Santorum. Unfortunately, the Obama administration I think is about to start blackmailing Murdoch into making him scale back on the right wing leaning perspective of Fox News. His troubles over in England are now being closely looked at by the Obama justice department. More likely than not, depending on how well they can bring Murdoch under their heel, willl determine just how aggressive they are in pursuing charges (false, trumped-up, or otherwise) against him and his media empire.