thx..
Posted on 01/07/2011 9:47:42 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
We have lately heard much of the claim that 2010 will turn out to have been “the hottest year on record”. No one has done more to promote this belief than Dr James Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), responsible for one of the four main official global temperature records.
As reported by the US blogs Real Science and Watts Up With That, in a post headed “GISS temperatures out of line with the rest of the world”, the GISS record has in recent months been diverging wildly from the others. While three have shown global temperatures dropping sharply, by as much as 0.3C, the GISS figures (based, despite the link to Nasa, on surface temperatures) have shot up by 0.2C.
In a second post (“Hansen’s 'Hottest Year Ever’ is primarily based on fabricated data”), Real Science demonstrates that the parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings. The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s temperature record has come under expert fire. Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
One thing many people outside of science (and even within science) fail to understand about potential bias. Bias may exist even without any data faking whatsoever.
Research may yield results that are only part of a larger picture, and, indeed, looking like the opposite of the overall picture. Jokes about this are common with medical research.
If researchers know they will receive funding only if their results are favorable to one side, they will not choose research topics that could possibly yield a confounding result. Therefore, none of the studies are done that could refute the preconceived outcome.
On the other hand, it is my personal belief that this is not all that is going on with Dr. Hansen. He should be removed from his position and replaced by a scientist.
***************************************EXCERPT********************************************
E.M.Smith says:
D. J. Hawkins says: I took a quick peek at the GISS website to try and understand how they crank out their numbers, and even a cursory glance was daunting.
Yup. Put me off for about 2 years. I kept saying “SOMEBODY needs to look at this!”… then one day I realized “I am somebody.”
I’ve downloaded it to a Linux box and got it to run. It ‘has issues’ but I figured out how to get past them. Details on request and posted on my web site. It required a long slow pass through the code…
Has there been a clear presentation of the methodology somewhere?
No.
There has been a lot of presentation of the methodology. Much of it is in technical papers that present a method, that is used in the code, but the code does more than (or sometimes less than, or sometimes just somewhat different from) what the papers describe.
It’s a convoluted complicated beast. Starter guide here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
I would think that once you nail down the method, no matter how many times you run the analysis the results should be the same.
You would think that. I thought that. It’s not that…
The code is designed in such a way that EVERY time you run it (with any change of starting data AT ALL) you will get different results. And both the GHCN and USHCN input data sets change constantly. Not even just monthly, but even mid-month things just ‘show up’ changed in the data sets.
So to talk about “what GIStemp does” at any point in time requires specification of the “Vintage” of data used TO THE DAY and potentially to the hour and minute.
Why?
Infill of missing data, homogenizing via the “Reference station method”, UHI via the “Reference Station Method”. Grid / Box anomaly calculation that uses different sets of thermometers in the grid/box at the start and end times (so ANY change of data in the recent “box” can change the anomalies…) and some more too…
If the assumptions regarding initial conditions are so fungible as to allow a reversal of the relative values of the anomolies at will, you don’t have a scientific analytical tool, you have a propoganda tool.
Can I quote you on that? It’s rather well said…
IMHO, the use of “Grid / Box anomalies” (calculated AFTER a lot of data manipulation, adjustment, averaging , homogenizing, etc done on monthly temperature averages…) mixed with changing what thermometers are in a “grid / box” in the present vs. the past lets you “tune” the data such that GIStemp will find whatever warming you like. It’s cleverly done (or subtile enough they missed the “bug”… being generous) and if a good programmer devotes about 2 years to it they can get to this point of understanding. Everyone else is just baffled by it. Draw your own conclusions…
I’ve tried explaining it to bright folks. A few ‘get it’. Most just get glazed. Some become hostile. I’ll explain it to anyone who wants to put in the time, but it will take a couple of weeks (months if not dedicated) and few folks are willing to ‘go there’.
Judging from the look of the code, it was written about 30 years ago and never been revisited (just more glued on, often ‘at the end’ of the chain). From that I deduce that either Hansen is unwilling to change “his baby” or very few folks are willing to shove their brains through that particular sieve …
The bottom line is that “the GIStemp code” is DESIGNED to never be repeatable and to constantly mutate the results as ANY input data changes and that makes ALL the output shift. It’s part of the methodology in the design. Don’t know if that’s “malice” or “stupidity”…
It is my assertion that this data sensitivity is what GIStemp finds when it finds warming. The simple fact that as new data is added the past shifts to a warmer TREND indicates to me that the METHOD induces the warming, not the actual trend in the data. I’ve gone through the data a LOT and find 1934 warmer than 1998 and with a method that IS repeatable. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/
Basically, 1934 and 1998 ought to stay constant relative to EACH OTHER even as new data is added even IF you were ‘adjusting the past cooler’ to make up for something or other (nominaly UHI or TOBS – yes, I know, it sounds crazy to make the past cooler for UHI correction, but it’s “what they do” in many cases).
As it is, they jockey for relative position with a consistent, though stochastic, downward drift of the older relative to the newer. That tells me it’s the method, not the data, that’s warming.
See #22.
********************************EXCERPT***************************************
Cassandra King says:
In the USSR and its slave satellite subject regions that I visited in the early 80s the ordinary unconnected people would look at the state broadcasts of record grain harvests and then look at the massive queues for what tiny quantities of bread was available, the people could easily see the ‘truth deficit’.
The state/establishment/ruling parasite class is desperate to sell the idea of CAGW, so desperate are they that like the USSR they have turned to telling ever bigger lies and deceptions. The gap between the observations of ordinary people and what they are told has reached breaking point, henceforth we will see ordinary people acting like those of the USSR, they will not believe anything the lying regime says whether its true or not. Trust has broken down, the bonds of trust between the political class and the people is broken, we know the political class and their stooge Lysenko’s are lying through their teeth.
The political class need CAGW whether its real or not, it allows them to control carbon and control the masses, it allows the rich to become richer and the powerful to become more powerful. The CAGW fraud is plan A, I can only imagine that a plan B would be a nightmare.
****************************************EXCERPT******************************************
E.M.Smith says:
Onion says: So this race between 1934 and 1998 was in the US temperature record, that comprises 2% of the Earth’s surface.
Um, no.
The article is a little unclear on that point, but the details are rather devilish, so I’d give them some slack on the details. The reality is rather complex…
GISS uses a code called GIStemp. It is that US CODE that is finding 1998 warmer than 1934 (sometimes).
GIStemp takes as input BOTH the USHCN (USA only data) and the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network – whole world data). Except that between about Noveber of 2010 and about 2007? it took in the USHCN but only used it up to 2007. Then in November it suddenly started using all of it (having finally added the code to use the newer version)… EXCEPT that the new version of USHCN was all different from the old version (warmer) so direct comparisions of old and new GIStemp are not, er, “valid”? “reasonable”?
OK, in the first step of GIStemp, it does a garbled “half averaging” of USHCN and GHCN but only for the USA stations. Each, you see, has a different ‘adjustment history’ so it tries to undo some of the adjustments in one and put in the adjustments from the other, except where it only has one, then it just uses whatever one it has, adjustments that don’t match and all.
Oh, and it fills in missing data by making it up.
N0, honest. It is called “The Reference Station Method” and it is used both to press fit the data to look like what they think it ought to be (called ‘homogenizing’) and to fill in missing bits with what they think would look nice and fit in well.
THEN that mush goes on the following steps (that are detailed in the links I gave above for anyone courageous enough to ‘go there’).
So, “onion”, they use the whole global data set. It’s just what they DO with it that’s, er, odd.
NOAA Climate Scientist: “We Need to Do Whatever We Can to Reduce Population”
Access to a 1 minute Video.
So.... from what I’ve seen, experienced, and read, it would seem that given the margin of error, The AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE has not really changed at all.
“Paging Dr. Lorenz....”
Untaxed cash is a great perk to buy someone.
It will be interesting in the days to come to see how the 112 Congress decide the value of funding the GISS activities.
thx..
And it is a poor metric to use to analyze the total heat energy (heat content) of the Earth's Biosphere. The atmospheric temperature at 2,000 feet above sea level is not equivalent in heat energy to the atmospheric temperature at sea level. This is simply due to density differences. The atmospheric temperature of humid air with a high density of water vapor is not equivalent in heat energy to dry air with less water vapor. Same with air containing moisture. Same with air containing fog.
So they are using the wrong metric combined with poor procedures and biased with political beliefs. Thus, they have ended up claiming the Earth is warming and the hottest ever, while the UK and South Florida experienced their coldest December in recorded history. In other words, the AGW crowd got it 180 degrees wrong.
the AGW crowd got it 180 degrees wrong.
And those are just the monumental problems with the way they measure the temps in the atmosphere. The far larger elephant in the middle of the room is the average temp of all the water in the oceans. With a herd of smaller elephants following behind such as fresh water, the ice caps, the earth’s crust, geo-thermal activity ... All massive quantities of material that have their own heat carrying capacity.
Since we are dealing with a majority water planet, would suggest a maritime environment. Perhaps a small to medium sized island or peninsula. For example the UK or Florida. If we utilize those, we just experienced the coldest December in the modern recorded era. Which of course explains the record number of Manatee deaths last year in Florida and all the other live stock problems in the UK/Florida last year.
“Absolutely not. Hansen isn’t a scientist. He’s a political activist masquerading as a scientist.”
I wonder if someone has come up with the term “armchair scientist”. Because whether or not someone else has, I’d say it right now, given the way I have seen Hansen shout from his cozy spaces right now. I would say to a climate scientist, come give me a gadget to melt some ice, and end my holiday holdup in the Phoenix, Arizona airport for crying out loud. Anyway, that’s my rant.
A step-change in Earth's climate outlook?
Driving US families into fuel poverty
Global Warming on Free Republic
“I wonder if someone has come up with the term “armchair scientist””
_______________________________________
That is one good term, but the AGW cabal has at least three
branches, or groups.
1. Thieves that are in it for the money and fame.
Albert Goreon is the prime example of this group.
2. Control freaks. This includes the neo-Marxist, Democrats,
and any other group that wants control of people’s lives.
This includes the “nanny state” types.
3. The self important types and pseudo scientist.
Sadly, even FR has some of these.
I well remember one, I will not mention his FR name,
but he was constantly posting pages of graphs and data
to support AGW.
The general public around the world is certainly devided
and range from doom and gloomers, to those that see it as a scam.
Whenever I encounter one of the doom and gloomers, I always start by asking them to explain the MWP, followed by the little ice age.
Most have no clue as to what I am asking about.
Sadly, the real climate or weather will not likely dissuade
the first two groups, as they have too much invested in
continuing the scam.
bump. good article!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.