GISS Data Tampering Accounts For 100% Of US Warming

[daveman]

GISS Data Tampering Accounts For 100% Of US Warming

GISS used to show that the US cooled from 1930 through 1999, and that 1934 was much warmer than 1998. But they changed the graph to create the appearance of a non-existent warming trend.

 

[Abraham3]

Wow...

 

[daveman]

Wow...

Indeed. Makes you wonder how anyone can still believe the AGW fantasy, doesn't it?

But people still bitterly cling to it. Of course, it's not like they give a damn about the environment. They just want more and more government control over individual lives.

You know anybody like that?

 

[IanC]

Ya know, I wouldn't be all that upset if they changed their methodology once in a long while and presented the old and new side by side for a few years so that everyone knew that there had been a significant change. But they change it constantly and remove all trace of the old.

 

[daveman]

Ya know, I wouldn't be all that upset if they changed their methodology once in a long while and presented the old and new side by side for a few years so that everyone knew that there had been a significant change. But they change it constantly and remove all trace of the old.

That's what proves their dishonesty.

 

[Politico]

OR people could just look back through history AND MAKE THEIR OWN CHARTS.

 

[IanC]

A few years ago I read the Hansen and Seto (?) paper on UHI and their method of correcting for it. it was bizarre and seemingly without commonsense. the end result was roughly half of the sites were raised, half lowered, for a net result of nothing.

it takes a whole lot of convoluted thinking to convince yourself (or anyone else) that urban heat island effect can actually lower the temperature readings so that they need to be artificially raised.

 

[IanC]

OR people could just look back through history AND MAKE THEIR OWN CHARTS.

Im not sure I understand you. is it sarcasm, or do you think it is a simple task to retrieve data that has been replaced by a newer version? it used to be possible to get older GISS versions via the wayback machine but it is disabled now.

 

[Politico]

Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.

 

[IanC]

Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.

I am not sure how to respond to that. I havent corresponded with GISS to see if they would release historic versions of their data. I doubt it but I may be wrong. do you think you could get the contUS GISS figures circa 2003? circa 1993?

I have shown how the GISS contUS figures have risen quite dramatically for post-1998 figures and dropped for pre-1950, over the last 5 years of different versions. I suspect pre 1980 versions were rather stable but I have no access to them. do you?

 

[IanC]

A few years ago I read the Hansen and Seto (?) paper on UHI and their method of correcting for it. it was bizarre and seemingly without commonsense. the end result was roughly half of the sites were raised, half lowered, for a net result of nothing.

it takes a whole lot of convoluted thinking to convince yourself (or anyone else) that urban heat island effect can actually lower the temperature readings so that they need to be artificially raised.

one of the distractions Hansen puts out when making 'adjustments' that always seem to increase the warming trend, is to say that some years/sites go up and some go down, so that the average is unchanged. but it certainly does matter if long past years are lowered while recent numbers have been increased.

 

[edthecynic]

A few years ago I read the Hansen and Seto (?) paper on UHI and their method of correcting for it. it was bizarre and seemingly without commonsense. the end result was roughly half of the sites were raised, half lowered, for a net result of nothing.

it takes a whole lot of convoluted thinking to convince yourself (or anyone else) that urban heat island effect can actually lower the temperature readings so that they need to be artificially raised.

Actually, it takes a convoluted rationalization to convince yourself that the UHI effect can actually raise temperature ANOMALIES since you actually acknowledge it raises temperature readings. Since anomalies are measured against the average temperature readings over 30 years, higher temperature readings yield a higher average the anomaly is measured against and therefore a lower anomaly. Since it is anomalies that show trends over time, the UHI effect lowers the trend and when corrected for will mathematically raise it.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

 

[IanC]

A few years ago I read the Hansen and Seto (?) paper on UHI and their method of correcting for it. it was bizarre and seemingly without commonsense. the end result was roughly half of the sites were raised, half lowered, for a net result of nothing.

it takes a whole lot of convoluted thinking to convince yourself (or anyone else) that urban heat island effect can actually lower the temperature readings so that they need to be artificially raised.

Actually, it takes a convoluted rationalization to convince yourself that the UHI effect can actually raise temperature ANOMALIES since you actually acknowledge it raises temperature readings. Since anomalies are measured against the average temperature readings over 30 years, higher temperature readings yield a higher average the anomaly is measured against and therefore a lower anomaly. Since it is anomalies that show trends over time, the UHI effect lowers the trend and when corrected for will mathematically raise it.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein

sorry, not buying that. UHI is a trend. airports add new runways, small buildings are replaced with bigger ones. greenspace gets built on and roads are paved, all in a steady progression (ok, I guess Detroit is an exception). if there was no other trend besides UHI then you would be lowering recent temps and raising old ones. in fact we see the exact opposite adjustments with recent temps raised and the past cooled. it does not matter what the other trends in temperature are, up or down, the correction for UHI is to lower the trend for all areas that are growing.

 

[Politico]

Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.

I am not sure how to respond to that. I havent corresponded with GISS to see if they would release historic versions of their data. I doubt it but I may be wrong. do you think you could get the contUS GISS figures circa 2003? circa 1993?

I have shown how the GISS contUS figures have risen quite dramatically for post-1998 figures and dropped for pre-1950, over the last 5 years of different versions. I suspect pre 1980 versions were rather stable but I have no access to them. do you?

So your solution would be to go back to the sources of corrupted data. You're right how can someone respond to that.

 

[IanC]

Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.

I am not sure how to respond to that. I havent corresponded with GISS to see if they would release historic versions of their data. I doubt it but I may be wrong. do you think you could get the contUS GISS figures circa 2003? circa 1993?

I have shown how the GISS contUS figures have risen quite dramatically for post-1998 figures and dropped for pre-1950, over the last 5 years of different versions. I suspect pre 1980 versions were rather stable but I have no access to them. do you?

So your solution would be to go back to the sources of corrupted data. You're right how can someone respond to that.

perhaps you have missed my point. on the other thread about GISS temps I showed that adjustments from 2011 version to 2012 version were made on the temps of the new century that average out to over 1C per century. we also know that pre 1950 temps are being adjusted downward, which also increases the artificial trend towards more warming. by comparing old versions to newer ones we can see how much is actual warming by temperature readings, and how much is due to 'corrections'.

corruption may be too strong a word. improvements towards an expected result is more likely to be the cause.

 

[Abraham3]

What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.

 

[Old Rocks]

This issue was settled with Muller's BEST study. End of debate.

 

[IanC]

What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.

have the adjustments to the temperature records for Rekjavic(sp) and the rest of Iceland been justified in your eyes?

when one example of incorrect results is presented it does not mean the methodology is completely wrong but the error should be corrected. so far it hasnt, and no explanations have been forthcoming.

and there are certainly many more examples of homogenization gone wrong, as have been amply displayed on multiple threads here over the past few years.

 

[Abraham3]

What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.

have the adjustments to the temperature records for Rekjavic(sp) and the rest of Iceland been justified in your eyes?

when one example of incorrect results is presented it does not mean the methodology is completely wrong but the error should be corrected. so far it hasnt, and no explanations have been forthcoming.

and there are certainly many more examples of homogenization gone wrong, as have been amply displayed on multiple threads here over the past few years.

Link please

 

[Abraham3]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Current Analysis Method
The current analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small. A paper describing the current analysis was published (Hansen et al. 2010) in Reviews of Geophysics in December 2010. The paper compares alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and reality of global warming. Alternative choices for the ocean data are tested. It is shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. We suggest use of 12-month (and n×12) running mean temperature to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010. After that paper appeared, version 3 of the GHCN data became available. The current analysis is now based on the adjusted GHCN v3 data for the data over land. The ocean data are now based on NOAA ERSST for the sake of simplicity, replacing a prior concatenation of Hadley Center's HadSST1 and the satellite-based NOAA (Reynolds) OISST.

We maintain a running record of any modifications made to the analysis, available on our Updates to Analysis page.

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current adjusted GHCN-v3 and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months.

The GHCNv3/SCAR data are modified to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.

Programs used in the GISTEMP analysis and documentation on their use are available for download. The programs assume a Unix-like operating system and require familiarity with FORTRAN, C and Python for installation and use.

***************************************

Gosh, what an astounding lack of transparency.

ps: Iceland represents 2 ten-thousandths (0.02%) of the Earth's surface. It's climate is almost totally dominated by the surrounding ocean. If GISS wanted to affect global trends, they picked a heck of a place to do it from.