There shouldn’t be any adjustments, period.
People doing analysis like these normally assume a Monte Carlo distribution of error (high and low) and leave the data alone. It is a blatant conflict of interest for a climate activist like Hansen to turn a downwards trend into an upwards trend..
How about letting the Raven’s coach adjust the AFC championship game score?
We have satellites now, which are not affected by TOBS or UHI. The surface record should be frozen where it was 15 years ago, and never touched again.
Thirty-two years ago. 1979 was the first year for satellite records. Historic temperature records should be tested against known temperature proxies to see if they have any value. The divergence between the surface records and the trees was probably due to faulty surface records. Trees still grow the same as they have done for millions of years. I would say the tree rings are more reliable than the reported temperatures after the temperature records have been Hansenized or Jonefied.
JONESIFIED!!!!!
Mike -
Would you say the same thing if you knew that almost none of the dendros even look into what causes tree-rings to grow, at the biological level?
Would you say the same thing if you knew that the tree-ring divergence problem has existed since 1940, and that they have not done any fundamental research in over 70 years to find out where the divergence is coming from?
Would you say the same thing if you knew that tree-rings were originally used as proxies for precipitation?
Would you say the same thing if you knew that with tree-rings being used as proxies for both precip and for temps, they have done nothing to determine how much each factor contributes to tree-ring growth?
Do not accept that tree-rings are good proxies for temperature, Mike. That is one of their dirty little secrets, that tree-rings are NOT reliable proxies for temperature. Briffa gets really frustrated about the DP, but he also doesn’t get out there to learn what are the underlying assumptions and which ones are wrong.
Mike, what a crock. So temperature is the only variable controlling tree growth rates? B.S. Water, ambient humidity, CO2 itself, sunlight exposure/cloud cover, soil conditions, … are all confounding variables which cannot be adequately controlled for.
That they are selectively used to construct hockey sticks is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
John B -
Yep, all valid OTHER factors having to do with tree-ring growth. I assume by “soil conditions” you mean nutrients as much as anything, and you are correct.
As to using them in temperature reconstructions, if they vet the adjustments properly and show precisely how it is (biological mechanisms specifically) that tree-rings are good proxies for temperature, I have no problem with them using them, as long as they can show the correlation isn’t spurious or coincidental. But like in math or science class: They need to show their work.
If a student stonewalled a professor, refusing to show where he got his adjustments, the kid would get an ‘F’. Pointing eastward and saying, “My methodology and my data are over in that direction,” that doesn’t cut it. How Nature and the other journals got caught up with being the enablers for these guys is mind boggling.
One can easily point at the journals as the real culprits in all of this. If the journals had simply followed their own requirements CRU and Mann wouldn’t have ever gotten as powerful as they are. The journals lowered their standards and took science down with them.
People like Kevin O’Neill here, claiming that skeptics don’t do science, are pathetic in their hypocricy. He has a double standard, claiming that skeptics have to follow scientific standards, while being willfully blind to CRU’s, Mann’s and the modeler’s lack of regimen. Using ‘black box’ adjusted data (which is also cherry-picked and re-adjusted when it suits their crusade), plus intentionally violating FOIA and blowing off journal requirements – it is not only sloppy, but certain to one day to be found out. And where will that have gotten their disciplines? Only several black eyes and disrespect. The give-and-take with skeptics now is nothing compared to the scandal to come.
There are many factors making up the ‘Heat Budget’ of the Earth and affecting surface temperatures,These include naturally occurring radioactivity from the Crust, windblown dust from Deserts (albedo) the movement of lava beneath the Crust and the passage of ‘Dry’ Cycles around the planet. (see ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes, 1990.)
To take temperature readings from selected ‘stations’ and present them as evidence of Global Warming, is dishonest and mischievous. In considering the over-all scheme of Climate Change, arbitrary surface temperature fluctuations manipulated by unscrupulous charlatans should be ignored.
An updated version of the above work (with ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055) is available as a free pdf from [email protected]
The Ravens were “adjusted” up their rear end when the refs called back the winning touchdown.
Sandusky was just “adjusting” those young boys. That’s just innocent horseplay that goes on at Penn State all the time.
See Steven, the ‘little boys’ meme is working. Your momma must be proud.
Scientist’s should never adjust data. If they realize there are inconsistencies and differences in data collection, well, bad results are better than consistent results.
Just as public opinion polling agencies shouldn’t try to determine who will vote and who won’t. Of course accuracy will suffer and they’ll make less money with their worthless results, but the gods have spoken; data shall not be adjusted.
Neither shall bloggers take maps and ADJUST the color schemes to suit their own nefarious purposes. This too is against the rules. Especially when they’re inept and get it wrong half the time.
Oh gimme a break. You were all happy to scream the data *wasn’t* being adjusted for UHI. Then when it is … LOOK SQUIRREL!
As long as the data doesn’t agree with you, the data must be wrong. End of story.
Kevin, what are you babbling about? UHI is still being adjusted for incorrectly. Look at what BEST did to it. Rural/non-rural…. give me a break.
Kevin, you can not have a dynamic history. If you accept a dynamic history you’ve no history at all.
1998 was the warmest year evuh, and because of the various adjustments and algorithms employed it can be again. Soon we’ll have parimutuel betting on how our historical temps are fairing. How many times should 1934 be adjusted from here on out? The race continues…….. shear lunacy.
Does an original unadjusted surface temperature data set exist anymore?
Have all the adjustments done to the data been peer-reviewed and rationale given, and where can this documentation be found?
I’m not sure about GISS, but obviously the dog ate HadCrut’s homework.
In case I didn’t make myself clear; you’re not interested in Science. You deny the science. That is the essence of your argument. Science cannot …. Science cannot ….
Hansen is a bogeyman. He’s evil. He’s on the opposite side. He’s a fraud. He’s a con-man. The litany is long. SG here insinuates he’s a pedophile. So much animosity. The anger is palpable.
Jim Hansen — I’ve never met the man. I’ve only read a little about him. His work on Venus was impressive. Building a GCM was impressive. Showing the aerosol effects of the 1963 Mount Agung eruption was historic. These are all scientific advancements. Mankind knew more than they did before.
A man who has devoted his life to science, making far less money in the public sector than he could have elsewhere. Yep, sounds like a real monster. Hansen is the epitome of what scientists do – they search for the truth. They tease knowledge out of data where knowledge didn’t exist before.
Or he’s a terrible, fraudulent, con-man. Right.
Venus? You are genuinely clueless.
Venus? Ummm … yeah …. IIRC Hansen’s early work for NASA described the effect of sulphates and CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus.
Tell us Kevin, how does CO2 affect Venus?
ROFLMAO in advance.
Are you serious? Venus’ temperature is considered to be THE runaway greenhouse effect.
Why is it 100 degrees warmer in Saudi Arabia than on the top of Mount Everest?
Interesting that you’ve written at least two posts at WUWT on the subject and another 10 here. Yet you act dumb when I bring the matter up.
Either you’re senile, the current SG is not the SG that wrote those posts, or you want to disavow your previous writings on the subject.
Rather odd behaviour in any event.
The earth’s troposphere is heated from below, so temperature drops with an increase in altitude. This is not true of the stratosphere. Since both Saudi Arabia and Mt Everest are in the troposphere, it makes sense that Mt Everest would be cooler.
If the troposphere is heated from below, why is it colder at a ground surface on top of a mountain, than at a ground surface at the bottom of a mountain?
Are you claiming that the troposphere is not heated from below?
Most of the heating in the lower atmosphere is due to convection. Have you ever experienced a Chinook or Santa Ana wind?
http://www.real-science.com/time-venus
No, most of the heating of the lower troposphere is due to incoming solar radiation. Without solar, the internal heat of the earth wouldn’t do much – with or without convection.
The surface of Venus receives very little sunlight, yet is very hot. Jupiter’s lower atmosphere receives almost zero sunlight and contains very little greenhouse gas, yet it is very hot.
You are listening to fools, Kevin.
Here’s what I think of models, even if legitimate: garbage in, garbage out.
Just show me one AGW climate model that has accurately PROSPECTIVELY predicted temps, as well as frequency and severity of all the extreme events that alarmists fear monger about. (I’m not saying predicting specific weather events, just overall frequency and severity). AGW needs to be “falsifiable.”
Jupiter’s lower atmosphere? That’s a rather vague statement for a gas giant. I’m not sure whya you consider Jupiter’s atmosphere to be warm.
It’s 1 bar temperature is 165K.
The lower troposphere on Jupiter is over 400K, and gets essentially no sunlight. It also has very little greenhouse gas.
Steven – Jupiter creates as much internal heat as it receives from the sun.
Earth’s atmosphere is very transparent to incoming solar radiation. Venus is very opaque.
Shall we throw in Mars as well?
Are you going to jump the shark and do something like <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/23/the-mystery-of-equation-8/"The Mystery of Equation 8?
You can only define temperature on Jupiter by pressure; there is no surface. Lower troposphere can mean different things; hence I listed temperature by pressure. At 1 bar – earth’s surface pressure – Jupiter is less than 200K.
Your mileage may vary.
Here we go again.
Jupiter receives very little heat from the Sun or from below, yet is very hot. I did not use the word surface to describe Jupiter.
If you are going to be a moron, I am not going to waste my time.
SG – On Venus, what determines the height of the tropopause?
Yu said, “Jupiter’s lower atmosphere…”
I said that was very vague, it is. Since Jupiter doesn’t have a surface ‘lower atmosphere’ could mean many different things to different people.
I gave a 1 bar temp as lower atmosphere. You obviously believe it has to be even lower. No big deal. I said YMMV.
I’m more interested in what you believe determines the tropopause on Venus. We did start of talking about Venus and the greenhouse effect.
Get a tutor. You are hopeless.
Yes, I’ve been reading through your past articles. You are hopeless. Pressure determines temperature – except it’s the sun. And don’t mention Mercury. Bad math (dropping whichever terms don’t suit you), using the dry adiabatic rate and neglecting the environmental lapse rate, forgetting that the Ideal Gas Law is an *ideal* and differs in practice … I could go on.
I’m sure your Nobel is in the mail … only *YOU* know the truth. I’m surprised you haven’t received it already.
Megalomania much?
Tell us Steve, how is it you understand atmospheric physics better than the atmospheric scientists? What’s your secret …. please, please tell us.
God, what a maroon.
Are they knocking down your doors to have you teach at JPL?
Lots of people understand this. Just not the dimwits you listen to.
Ever used a bicycle pump?
Why would I go work at a Government lab? I make twice as money working in the private sector.
Steve: With all due respect, Charles’ Law does not apply here (bicycle pump example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%27_law
where work (pushing down on the pump handle) is done. The atmospheric pressure gradient is at steady state – heat is not generated by the fact that the atmosphere is compressed, but only if one compresses the atmosphere further. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can’t get something from nothing.
Kevin: Jupiter emits about 2x the energy it receives from the Sun.
The discussion about Jupiter is a bit off topic. Might I suggest a little reading material: http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item5562946/?site_locale=en_US
Jupiter receives very little energy from the Sun. The internal heat flux escaping Jupiter is about 1/20th of what the Earth receives from the Sun on a summer afternoon. Blaming 400K temperatures on 50 w/m^2 internal heat flux is not gonna fly.
I’m not “blaming” anything. I just think you are mis-applying the model to a planet like Jupiter which receives a tiny amount of sunlight as compared to Earth, yet also emits twice the energy that it receives from the Sun due to an internal heat source.
The amount of internal heat that Earth emits from an internal heat source is a tiny fraction of what it receives from the Sun.
Then there is the matter of the atmospheric composition of Jupiter as measured in the particular location of the Galileo probe, and that apparently it by chance hit a “dry” patch and missed the water.
I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here. This is not the issue to attack AGW theory with – your other arguments are much more powerful.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. The amount of internal heat escaping from Jupiter is small, yet temperatures are very hot in the lower atmosphere.
Well, I don’t know everything. By chance do you have an equation that describes this phenomena at Jupiter (i.e. temp as a function of depth)?
Any comment on Charles’ Law?
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
When I went to school, I was taught that Jupiter was very cold, which made sense since it is so far from the sun. Now I’m being told that Jupiter is very hot. Live and learn. That is why I leave science to others.
“A man who has devoted his life to science, making far less money in the public sector than he could have elsewhere….”
Absolutely delusional. They don’t pay much for incompetence in the private sector. He’s gaining 6 and 7 figure graft for his advocacy, using his position with NASA.
Google “venus greenhouse effect”
438,000 results. The first page has plenty pf education/science sites that will clue you in.
Actually, Hansen’s Venus work was his doctoral thesis.
ROFLMAO Even Hansen admits that his doctoral dissertation was wrong.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/hansens-doctoral-dissertation-aerosols-makes-venus-hot/
Wow, that proves everything.
Here’s one with over 14,000,000 results: http://bit.ly/wei5Iu
Steve, I think Kevin needs to be introduced to Harry Dale Huffman (:-
No adjustments should be made, for the simple reason that the thermometers recorded only one datum of historical data. The rest would involve humidity, land use, local conditions like shade. Etc. Etc.
Those thermometers CANNOT be used, in and of themselves, in terms of trying to determine -the cause- of changes in temperatures over (extended periods of) time.
Given the clear presence of significant confounding factors, it is a classical example of the Non-Sequitur fallacy.
It makes no sense to even try: unless there are some truly awesome (and sufficient!) historical records available… and a range of studies which cover the effects (and inter-related effects) of each variable, which there won’t be for more than possibly a teensy tiny fraction.
To take an instrument that does one thing (record localized temp), and then try to get it to measure something else (record localized temp ADJUSTED FOR CHANGES IN -ALL- LOCAL CONDITIONS), is quite idiotic.
If you are being treated as a superstar for your past modeling work but now actual measured data is diverging with your model, the best way to adjust temperature is to adjust it to fit your model. Now I’m sure you’re thinking, “What imbeciles allowed for a potential conflict of interest whereby the scientists doing the modeling is the same scientists adjusting temperatures?” What imbeciles indeed?
Had our forefathers been such imbeciles, our current government would not have separation of powers meant to reduce the chance of conflicts and corruption that we see occurring in third world dictatorships. All we need now is for FOI laws to be shot down and the birth of scientific toltarianism can be made the official position of our government. We could then use some sort of hand/arm gesture to acknowledge that we support our new tolatarian science regime.
ANY adjustments made to ANY data by ANY scientist should first show 100% what the data was before the adjustments.
Then it should be spelled out exactly what adjustments are being made to any of the data. If not applied to all the data, that ‘why not’ should be spelled out clearly. All reasoning used should be spelled out explicitly.
All possible adjustments that are NOT used should have an explanation of why those adjustments are not applicable.
In addition, all data adjustments should be – by the originating authors – looked at critically IN THE TEXT and shown that the adjustments used have withstood that first gauntlet of challenge.
Finally: Once adjusted and accepted, data should never be adjusted again.