How malleable are GISS US Temps?

[IanC]

I stumbled upon this old graph that compares the GISS US Temps produced in 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 2011.

I havent looked at last year's numbers but I will post them. does anyone want to guess whether the temps have gone up or down? I think we all know that the numbers will have gone up but what do you think the over/under should be? a new version went in late '11 or early '12 so I am not sure if this graph already has the bump. 0.015C seems like a reasonable guess to me. anybody else want to make a guess? how about you warmers out there? do you think the adjustment to the 'adjustments' will be larger or smaller than 0.015C on average for the years covered?



a quick eyeball of the data seems to show a 0.08C rise over five years (but it did have a dip for McIntyre's discovery of the Y2K problem). that's over one and a half degrees per century! is it any wonder that skeptics are a bit leary of putting total faith in global warming numbers? and this is for the most measured, best measured area in the world, with a lower than average temperature increase!

so.....anybody want to make a guess?




edit- six years, there isnt any data presented for 2010.

 

[IanC]

uh-oh. GISS doesnt seem to be sharing anymore.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

that used to bring up the US temps but now all I get is

Gone
The requested resource
/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource.

perhaps it is just temporarily unavailable. at least I know that no one can cheat by peaking at the answer!

 

[flacaltenn]

Is this like boiling a frog?

Because they've been POUNDING the 1935 to 1942 temperatures into the ground for years.
And the difference THERE is more than an annual 0.014degC. AND more important to the cause.

 

[IanC]

Is this like boiling a frog?

Because they've been POUNDING the 1935 to 1942 temperatures into the ground for years.
And the difference THERE is more than an annual 0.014degC. AND more important to the cause.

You are correct. I have brought up this topic many times before and it gets no traction. Without the seemingly endless new rounds of adjustments, wouldn't the temps be going down?

The warmers want us to believe their facts and figures are accurate and preccise yet they change all the time.

Abe tried to tell me that ocean temps under 700m were precise to hundreths of a degree but land temps are changing that much every year. If one set of data can get pushed around so much what makes them so confident that ocean measurements taken so sparsely can detect changes which are much less than the error bars?

 

[IanC]

BTW- my guess of 0.015C as the over/ under was extremely close although the SD was larger than I would have guessed.

 

[Moonglow]

the little ice age was killer

 

[IanC]

Abe- on a different thread you asked me if I thought the temps were purposely being manipulated to show higher readings. My answer is s qualified 'yes'.

In six years just the adjustments to historical numbers is the equivalent of one and a half degrees per century. Numbers from pre-1950s are adjusted lower, also adding to the trend.

I think there was pressure to produce numbers that supported the models. There is a lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions involved with producing a dataset. I think it was likely decisions were made to reduce embarrassment over falling temps.

 

[Abraham3]

Abe tried to tell me that ocean temps under 700m were precise to hundreths of a degree but land temps are changing that much every year. If one set of data can get pushed around so much what makes them so confident that ocean measurements taken so sparsely can detect changes which are much less than the error bars?

I didn't "try to tell" you. I showed you a study that had concluded XBTs in common use were accurate to 0.06F (0.033C).

There is no such thing as a perfect measuring device or a perfect measurement. People collecting data often have to make adjustments and corrections to compensate for biases in the equipment and or the measurement process. The intention of such activities is to increase accuracy and unless you want to presuppose a vast conspiracy among the world's scientists, it is pointless to even conjecture that temperature data have been systematically altered to simulate greater warming.

The alternative line I have heard here - that because of these inaccuracies we do not, or can not, know what the temperature might actually be, is either disingenuous or ignorant. Accuracy and resolution set limits on our knowledge, they do not preclude it in its entirety. I know I do not have to tell you this, but we have people looking over our shoulders.

The techniques used to properly determine and apply corrections in such data are well studied. Mistakes are certainly possible and I am certain they have taken place. But they are not dominant or overwhelming. And since there is no reason to believe they are systematic, the only result is noise and a concomitant increase in standard deviation.

The rate of temperature variation on the ocean's vertical axis is many orders of magnitude larger than the variation in the horizontal. The sparsity of data in the XY plane, particularly below 2,500 feet*, is not a show stopper, and with the ARGO array (once its data have been properly calibrated ) that sparsity is greatly relieved.

No one ever has as much data as they want or need. But enough data do exist to adequately support the conclusions under discussion (Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, 2013).

* The depth limit of the most commonly used XBT probes

 

[Abraham3]

Abe- on a different thread you asked me if I thought the temps were purposely being manipulated to show higher readings. My answer is s qualified 'yes'.

In six years just the adjustments to historical numbers is the equivalent of one and a half degrees per century. Numbers from pre-1950s are adjusted lower, also adding to the trend.

I think there was pressure to produce numbers that supported the models. There is a lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions involved with producing a dataset. I think it was likely decisions were made to reduce embarrassment over falling temps.

I disagree with you on several points. There is NOT a "lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions" available to folks making such changes in publicly resourced data used in peer reviewed studies.

If there were pressure to minimize the cooling of 1941-1979 or the curent hiatus, it has failed. Telling me "yes" because you believe there was pressure to adjust them one way or another, regardless of the physical evidence, is not much of an argument. On what evidence is such a belief to be based? Have you found any systematic direction to these adjustments? Can you show that they are not actually justified by the information at hand? How about the people who spend even more time worrying about these things: Watts, McIntyre or even the world's climate scientists who use that data to earn their daily bacon. Unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy, why do we see virtually zero objections among climate scientists themselves to any of these adjustments?

The scientific method relies heavily on people checking the work of others. But starting with a presumption of incompetence or ill intent is counterproductive: you have made an unsupported presupposition that the data and the results they support are different than what has been concluded. That is not objectivity. That is not an open mind. That is simply a prejudice.

 

[IanC]

Abe tried to tell me that ocean temps under 700m were precise to hundreths of a degree but land temps are changing that much every year. If one set of data can get pushed around so much what makes them so confident that ocean measurements taken so sparsely can detect changes which are much less than the error bars?

I didn't "try to tell" you. I showed you a study that had concluded XBTs in common use were accurate to 0.06F (0.033C).

There is no such thing as a perfect measuring device or a perfect measurement. People collecting data often have to make adjustments and corrections to compensate for biases in the equipment and or the measurement process. The intention of such activities is to increase accuracy and unless you want to presuppose a vast conspiracy among the world's scientists, it is pointless to even conjecture that temperature data have been systematically altered to simulate greater warming.

The alternative line I have heard here - that because of these inaccuracies we do not, or can not, know what the temperature might actually be, is either disingenuous or ignorant. Accuracy and resolution set limits on our knowledge, they do not preclude it in its entirety. I know I do not have to tell you this, but we have people looking over our shoulders.

The techniques used to properly determine and apply corrections in such data are well studied. Mistakes are certainly possible and I am certain they have taken place. But they are not dominant or overwhelming. And since there is no reason to believe they are systematic, the only result is noise and a concomitant increase in standard deviation.

The rate of temperature variation on the ocean's vertical axis is many orders of magnitude larger than the variation in the horizontal. The sparsity of data in the XY plane, particularly below 2,500 feet*, is not a show stopper, and with the ARGO array (once its data have been properly calibrated ) that sparsity is greatly relieved.

No one ever has as much data as they want or need. But enough data do exist to adequately support the conclusions under discussion (Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, 2013).

* The depth limit of the most commonly used XBT probes

I read. Your link to the XBT manufacturers. It described one quality control batch of ten XBTs and gave no indication of other ongoing QC. There are often major differences between same lots, let alone different versions with millions produced. Just a quibble an I have already said I accept their claim to precision.

The scarcity of readings is the main problem. Ten million XBTs over 50 years may sound like a lot but the oceans are huge. The algorithms used to estimate unmeasured areas add their own uncertainty which compounds with other uncertainties.

I would like to point out that when you converted F to C you added an extra significant figure. This is yet another problem which has muddled datasets, but mostly land ones. When the precision is only in tenths of a degree but changes are measured in thousandths of a degree, there is a lot of wiggle room. The changes in heat content shown in the major datasets would necessarily need gains and losses in the range 20w/m2. Wouldn't we have noticed?

I think you are giving too much credence to science that often doesn't make sense logically and is presented with exaggerated certainty.

 

[IanC]

Abe- on a different thread you asked me if I thought the temps were purposely being manipulated to show higher readings. My answer is s qualified 'yes'.

In six years just the adjustments to historical numbers is the equivalent of one and a half degrees per century. Numbers from pre-1950s are adjusted lower, also adding to the trend.

I think there was pressure to produce numbers that supported the models. There is a lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions involved with producing a dataset. I think it was likely decisions were made to reduce embarrassment over falling temps.

I disagree with you on several points. There is NOT a "lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions" available to folks making such changes in publicly resourced data used in peer reviewed studies.

If there were pressure to minimize the cooling of 1941-1979 or the curent hiatus, it has failed. Telling me "yes" because you believe there was pressure to adjust them one way or another, regardless of the physical evidence, is not much of an argument. On what evidence is such a belief to be based? Have you found any systematic direction to these adjustments? Can you show that they are not actually justified by the information at hand? How about the people who spend even more time worrying about these things: Watts, McIntyre or even the world's climate scientists who use that data to earn their daily bacon. Unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy, why do we see virtually zero objections among climate scientists themselves to any of these adjustments?

The scientific method relies heavily on people checking the work of others. But starting with a presumption of incompetence or ill intent is counterproductive: you have made an unsupported presupposition that the data and the results they support are different than what has been concluded. That is not objectivity. That is not an open mind. That is simply a prejudice.

You have confidence that the changes brought in on a regular basis are correct and well explained. I don't and I have seen examples of specific stations that have been questioned with no further explaination than a link to a general description on a web site. Specific questions need specific answers. Refusal to do so is a warning flag. When methodologies spit out results that are inconsistent with reality it should be investigated rather than ignored and dismissed as 'only one example'. Mistakes and discoveries are often found by looking into just one anomolous result.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is not science, its not even close

 

[Abraham3]

Abe- on a different thread you asked me if I thought the temps were purposely being manipulated to show higher readings. My answer is s qualified 'yes'.

In six years just the adjustments to historical numbers is the equivalent of one and a half degrees per century. Numbers from pre-1950s are adjusted lower, also adding to the trend.

I think there was pressure to produce numbers that supported the models. There is a lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions involved with producing a dataset. I think it was likely decisions were made to reduce embarrassment over falling temps.

I disagree with you on several points. There is NOT a "lot of flexibility and discretionary decisions" available to folks making such changes in publicly resourced data used in peer reviewed studies.

If there were pressure to minimize the cooling of 1941-1979 or the curent hiatus, it has failed. Telling me "yes" because you believe there was pressure to adjust them one way or another, regardless of the physical evidence, is not much of an argument. On what evidence is such a belief to be based? Have you found any systematic direction to these adjustments? Can you show that they are not actually justified by the information at hand? How about the people who spend even more time worrying about these things: Watts, McIntyre or even the world's climate scientists who use that data to earn their daily bacon. Unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy, why do we see virtually zero objections among climate scientists themselves to any of these adjustments?

The scientific method relies heavily on people checking the work of others. But starting with a presumption of incompetence or ill intent is counterproductive: you have made an unsupported presupposition that the data and the results they support are different than what has been concluded. That is not objectivity. That is not an open mind. That is simply a prejudice.

You have confidence that the changes brought in on a regular basis are correct and well explained. I don't and I have seen examples of specific stations that have been questioned with no further explaination than a link to a general description on a web site. Specific questions need specific answers. Refusal to do so is a warning flag. When methodologies spit out results that are inconsistent with reality it should be investigated rather than ignored and dismissed as 'only one example'. Mistakes and discoveries are often found by looking into just one anomolous result.

Take your PhD and volunteer to do review work for some of the journals out there. And you're still approaching this with the wrong thought in your head. Many discoveries may be the result of investigating a single anomaly but that says nothing about the converse. You are assuming that many single anomalies indicate erroneous theories. Mind your syllogisms.

 

[IanC]

The damn flakey Internet here lost another long comment of mine.

Reyhjavic is a strong example of large adjustments being imposed by the whim of NOAA or GISS. The 30s were cooled by almost 2C in places, the latter part of last century had a consistent 0.5C warming added. If a well documented station can be changed against the wishes of the Iceland Met Office, what confidence can be had in less documented stations around the world?

I googled historic GISS temp graphs and then compared them to the present day version. Most had changes, always in the direction of increased trend, either by cooling the past or warming recent temps and usually both. I suggest you try the same experiment yourself.

I do not know the fraction of warming that is attributable to the ever changing homogeneity corrections that have been changing historical temperature values for the last decade but I assume it is at least 0.3C simply because it was agreed in the early part of the new millenium that there had been 0.7C warming from 1880-200x but now it is couched as 0.7C since 1950-present.

Climate scientists are fond of saying "trust us,we're experts", but the evidence simply evaporates under closer scrutiny. Even more disconcerting is the apathy the climate science community has to mistakes and ethical lapses. Climategate spawned many investigations but difficult questions were not asked. Jones was not asked if he had sent the delete all emails email or if he had deleted or moved them. Mann was asked if he had deleted or move the IPCC emails but no further investigation was carried out when he denied it. As it turned out Wahl did delete his emails and would have said so but NOBODY asked. Briffa also removed the emails, for 'safekeeping'. What kind of investigation doesn't even ask pointed questions or check the veracity of the answers? Oh, right, it has a name. Whitewash.

 

[IanC]

I stumbled upon this old graph that compares the GISS US Temps produced in 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 2011.

I havent looked at last year's numbers but I will post them. does anyone want to guess whether the temps have gone up or down? I think we all know that the numbers will have gone up but what do you think the over/under should be? a new version went in late '11 or early '12 so I am not sure if this graph already has the bump. 0.015C seems like a reasonable guess to me. anybody else want to make a guess? how about you warmers out there? do you think the adjustment to the 'adjustments' will be larger or smaller than 0.015C on average for the years covered?



a quick eyeball of the data seems to show a 0.08C rise over five years (but it did have a dip for McIntyre's discovery of the Y2K problem). that's over one and a half degrees per century! is it any wonder that skeptics are a bit leary of putting total faith in global warming numbers? and this is for the most measured, best measured area in the world, with a lower than average temperature increase!

so.....anybody want to make a guess?




edit- six years, there isnt any data presented for 2010.

1996 -0.0440
1997 0.1582
1998 1.3327
1999 1.1029
2000 0.7300
2001 0.9585
2002 0.7048
2003 0.7223
2004 0.6320
2005 0.9255
2006 1.3130
2007 0.9526
2008 0.1860
2009 0.2206
2010 0.6054
2011 0.6849
2012 1.8787

these appear to be a bit lower than the last time I looked. still, the one year adjustment from 2012 to 2013 on numbers that shouldnt be changing anyways is still over 1C/ century! its amazing to me that we have learned how to read thermometers better in 2012 than in 2011. perhaps we will be even smarter in 2013 and add yet another decimal place to the readings.

 

[IanC]

BTW- 2012 clocked in at a massive 0.6C degrees warmer than the hottest year of the 1930's!!!! obviously they were mistaken about it being hot back then. perhaps we should rewrite the history books.

 

[IanC]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

for future reference, they keep changing the names of their files

 

[flacaltenn]

You'd think that there wouldnt be any murder weapons left at the scene, but Dr. Roy simply subtracts the sat data from the murdered daata ---- and that disconti uity in your table cica 1997 justjumps out and screams ---ALRIGHT, I DID IT....

If you havent seen that, ill repost when im not pecking on a tablet.

 

[flacaltenn]

And there it is.. In all it's glory.. The revision of history that allows all those BRAND NEW temp records to be set..

The monkey biz is not limited to GISS official records..
Here is the US temp record USHCN with the Satellite data from Dr. Roy Spencer subtracted from it.

That jump at 1997?? No way that's real... It's an artifact of the crime process...

 

[Kosh]

More often than not the extreme temperatures or hottest temperature on record often get downgraded very quietly and the propaganda stays up on the web sites.