Hansen’s original data accurately showed the rapid warming during the 1920s, the 1940s temperature spike, and the rapid cooling during the 1970s.
Melting in 1940 :
The Courier-Mail Monday 6 May 1940
By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe.
In Alaska glaciers had been retreating from 100 to 200 years, the average rate of recession being about 50 feet a year. The Antarctic ice- sheet also showed signs of recent retreat.
“In fact,” said Professor Speight, “no case is recorded of a region of the world in which there are present signs of an advance.
The CIA wrote of ice expansion in 1974 :
“Early in the 1970s … the world’s snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent”
Science News wrote this in 1975
the weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium, and, partly as a result, the world’s population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal. Specific areas, of course, may experience changes markedly different from the average. During the warming period, temperatures in parts of Norway rose five times more than the hemisphere average, and since the cooling trend began again, Iceland’s temperature has dropped nearly 2.0 degrees, threatening continued existence of some crops.
By contrast, Hansen’s new corrected data makes no sense. He now shows early 1970s temperatures warmer than 1930s temperatures.
Unless the freezing point of water has changed, Hansen’s ”corrections” are bogus. They appear to be based on politics, not science.
Freezing Point Apparatus
This guy has to be called out!!
Hansen or Mann? Maybe both at the same time. It would still be no contest, so don’t count on seeing those yellow bellies anytime soon!
Stay tuned, guys. I have got more than a smoking gun.
The cycle of glacier retreats occur every 65 years. There will be some ice return in under 5 years. In 20 years time there will be a lot more ice again and will persist for more than 20 years maybe 30. What will they say about global warming then?
Take a look at this. Icelandic Met Office show Hansen is lying.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/giss-making-up-fictitious-temperatures-in-iceland/#more-615
btw. changing the freezing point of water, have you seen the fenbeagle post? Look what they did:
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/221/
It is being reported by nobody but me that Hansen got his “create the incline” idea from close relatives seen in this commercial. I’m not a reliable source though.
Hansenized! For more advection.
The lower “corrected” graph is very wrong. Where did you get the data?
The upper graph could be correct. I know because I have lived in Reykjavik
since 1945
Please see the graph marked “Hitafar í Reykjavík 1866 til 2009″ here: http://www.vedur.is/vedur/frodleikur/greinar/nr/1801
Regards
Agust
Do other scientists use Hansen’s data? Assuming some of them have any integrity left (I have no evidence that this is the case, though), shouldn’t they raise a stink about this?
We can use this as a test. When we hear nothing from the scientific community, we know they’re all corrupt.
Steve, could you please teach me how I can get to the first graph (before adjustment)?
This is because I myself had a similar experience with the GISS data: the graph (Graph A) of a small town, Albany, Texas, showed a monotonous 1 degC decline over 100 years when I looked it up around 2006, but now, after 5 years, the graph (Graph B) shows no monotonous trend but a notable upward trend from around 1980 to the present.
And now I can’t find Graph A on the GISS site…….. Tell me please whether I can get to it now. Thanks in advance.
They have hidden most of it. I just happen to have a few old links sitting around, but there doesn’t seem to be a pattern to how they have obfuscated the raw data.
Thank you for your prompt reply. But I can’t still understand the situation. Since the end year of your two graphs is the same (seemingly 2011), your first graph may be as “young” as the second graph…….
They just changed everything a few days ago.
However, in my case, the apparently “tweaked” graph stands there at least from somewhere in 2010.This may indicate that they have been tweaking the temp data from a few years back, and your Reykjavik graph happens to have been tweaked just a few days back. If so, everything is clear.