http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
Prior to the year 2000, Hansen knew that the 1930s was much hotter than any other decade in the US, and he also knew that his current US record year 1998 was half a degree cooler than 1934.
Peter Ellis was complaining earlier that the current 1971-2000 baseline is slightly higher than the pre-1936 baseline. As you can see, even that wasn’t true until Hansen and USHCN corrected corrupted the data in 2000.
Steve,
you have ben posting this for as long as I have read your blog.
PLEASE get someone ANYONE to publish a paper showing this blatant fraud. Surely there has to be ONE scientist who is not cowed by the tyrannical Gore/Soros/Hansen mob and will expose this to the world.
I’m not interested in motivations or soap operas. You can see the data for yourself.
steve,
EXACTLY!. it is so clear that this is out and out fraud.
So let’s get a real climate scientist. Someone WAY smarter than me, to publish a paper that shows this to be the obvious fraud that it is. It will be a huge scandal and Hansen will be fired, maybe prosecuted and the house of cards will begin tumbling down.
I see, you want someone who’s living and ability to support their family depends on concern about global warming, to undermine global warming. That is real likely to happen.
Steve,
just ONE. We can start a fundraising effort to tide Lindzen over until he retires. Once people see that the science totally exposes the fraud and that Hansen IS part of the muslim socialist plan to enslave america and impose atheist Sharia Law, both you and Lindzen will be hailed as saviors of the republic.
You are a genuine loon.
Steve,
you have already established that. After all asking for one scientist out of hundreds or thousands to tell the truth is absolutely insane.
Dyson, Pielke, Lindzen, Gray, Singer, Wegman, Tol, Landsea, Wingham, Svensmark, Nieuwstadt, Abdussamatov , ……. Try pulling the wax out of your ears
Steve,
WHY didn;t you tell me about all these scientists that have written papers detailing how Hansen engaged in fraud with his temperature adjustments.
Please supply the links to their papers, so that I can start enlightening those foolish alarmists, and media that keep using Hansen’s figures.
The village idiot can’t distinguish between scientists and lawyers?
More bull-shit from the shitbull
He was already exposed by several people.
The 1988 paper for the Senate Committee
The Arctic temperature data by severe 1200 KM extrapolations
His periodic GISSTemp adjustments
So why would a scientist waste time publishing a paper on something that was already done by educated people?
Sunset,
I don’t know. Maybe one scientist would be willing to not base their work on fraudulent data. I would think it would get harder and harder for honest scientist to produce real science if they keep having to base their results on fraudulent data.
Tony Duncan—ever the James Hansen apologist.
Ohh, but no! He’ll say he’s just trying to point out how everyone is being so unfair to James Hansen. Because after all, James Hansen is pure as the driven snow!
Let’s observe the purity in the famous 1988 James Hansen hearing room. So free of political influence. So much striving for truth. So much love for honesty. So much distaste for corruption. Pure and simple—the light of heaven was was on display in that day! The world is a better place because of the stainless wonder wafting through those microphones!
Tony Duncan
Hey Tony, why don’t you get someone, anyone, to do it. Prove to use you are not unbiased.
It’s funny really that you think Steven Goddard is the only one in the science world that is pointing out these changes in GISS data. You just don’t get out very much.
Amino,
I am not qualified to do what you suggest. However I am quite confident that there are people. In a related post Steve points out two scientists who have the credentials and are intensely involved in determining global temperature. Some guys named Christie and Spencer. Seems like they have all the resources necessary to prove this blatant fraud.
Unless of course they are part of the cabal that follows lockstep under Hansen’s marching orders.
Maybe you could check and see if they have ever disputed anything Hansen has said or written and we might be able to determine if they are trustworthy enough to challenge Hansen.
You really need to take some time to expand your horizons. You paradigm is pitifully small.
Amino,
being as you give no indication of knowing my paradigm that is an odd statement to make, and totally in keeping with your previous comments.
Tony,
You just have to read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to realize just how difficult it is to get any so called professional scientist to take on the consensus scientists. Mann performed the most egregious atrocities with his data and methods and all with the support of major scientific journals and institutions. If it were not for the gifted skeptical amateurs, Mann would be deified in the scientific annals by now. We can’t rely on so called experts and scientific institutions to save us from these rapscallions.
Robert,
the problem here is aptly illustrated in the second word in your comment. “just”. anyone who “just” reads on side of anything will fool themselves into believing they know the truth. The famous Mark Twain quote. “It ain’t the things we don’t know that get us into trouble, it is the things we know for sure that just ain’t so”
Tony
Have you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion?”
Tony,
The Hockey Stick story happened pretty much as documented by Andrew Montford and the story was not all that new to me as I followed it over the years prior to publication at Climate Audit (and even at Realclimate for comic relief). The climategate emails just added icing to the cake. So what is your point? Do you deny that Mann’s 98 and 99 papers were pure excrement and that the scientific community held their collective noses and looked the other way?
Tony
Have you read the book? As you have not replied I assume not in which case how does this fit with ” just reading one side”?
Paul,
No I have not read the hockey stick illusion. I am unfortunately unable to read every piece of information vital to understanding all the factors relating to climate science.
yes it is possible that the material in that book would be sufficient to prove that mann’s research was ” most egregious atrocities with his data and methods and all with the support of major scientific journals and institutions”.
I am unfortunately not able to respond to the over 130 comments I have received today on the 3 posts that I commented on. I will have to get 4 or 5 of my assistants to get on that tomorrow.
It is notable that even taking the NCDC figures 1934 is only 0.25C lower than 1998. The GISS graph suggests something over half a degree.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Paul,
link doesn’t work.
Let’s get this straight Tony—you really think Hansen didn’t change the data?
Amino,
I am pretty sure that nasa did adjust the data. I don;t think Steve just made this all up.
As for whether Hansen purposefully (or just incompetently) made the adjustments in order to support ACC, I don;t know. I am waiting for Steve to get a qualified scientist to publish the evidence that shows it is completely wrong.
So that means i am not an apologist. i am not supporting Hansen, and saying that he would never lie or never do something to support his ideological beliefs. too many scientists in the past have purposefully corrupted results to fit their theory. You forget I am a skeptic and i like to see all the evidence from both sides. I don’t just believe someone because they say it is so.
Tony
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
You will need to enter the parameters.
Paul
I am waiting for Tony Duncan to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he wasn’t responsible for the death of Amy Winehouse. Mind you, it had better be published in a respectable journal by someone with impeccable scientific credentials.
Tony
Thanks for your clarification. Like you I like to see the evidence. You accept that Hansen adjusted the temps. As often in these conversations you seem to be putting the burden of proof onto Steve to prove GISS have done something wrong. Surely it is GISS who have to prove beyond doubt the veracity of what they have done which I don’t accept they have.
On the wider issue – even if there had been valid reasons to adjust, there must surely be a wide margin of error for the exact amount of adjustment and therefore how much confidence can we have in the figures produced.
Paul,
I am sorry I have to switch gears when responding to you.
I would not say i am putting the burden of proof on Steve. My point is that this is a VITAL data set and any honest scientist who is involved in issues where that data set impacts their work would want to be sure that it was not fraudulent and as accurate as possible. What Steve posts is so blatant and large a change, it is int the interests of those scientists who use this info to make sure it is correct.
Both Christie and Spencer are specialists in this area and not believers in alarmist global warming. What do they say?
Real scientists would assume a Monte Carlo distribution of error on that huge messy data set, and not mess with it. The US data didn’t match the theory and they made adjustments which suit their personal needs. It doesn’t get much uglier than that in science.
Steve,
EXACTLY,
so it should be easy to totally discredit this in the scientific community.
Wait. Am I repeating myself?
It would be a massive amount of work (years worth) to properly analyze the TOBS adjustments and there is certainly no funding for it. Hansen and Karl never properly analyzed it. Most of the required data is unavailable. Your arguments are idiotic.
Tony
It is not as black and white as you paint it. When there is such a large, complex and arguably subjective set of data there is a huge amount of manipulation you can do on justifiable grounds and without crossing the border into fraud. This manipulation can work both ways. It is very simple to bend data one way or another.
Take my word for it. I am an accountant and can very easily bend my numbers to increase or decrease profits by quite a significant amount. ( And I have to justify this to the taxman + auditors!). If you were thinking about investing in a company, what would your reaction be if they retroactively adjusted their accounts to show more profit for the last 5 years, explaining that the previous figures were wrong!
Tony Duncan,
you’re right, Steven didn’t make the graphs. They were around before he started this blog.
Open your eyes Tony. There’s a very big world all around you. Very hard to miss it unless you are either lazy or willfully closing your eyes.
Also looking at the NCDC numbers, it is my understanding that NCDC do NOT make any adjustment for UHI.
Let me see….. let me see….
are there any oddities in GISS (James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt) data?
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ROMzxA4A9c
part 2
Amino,
still waiting for something that isn’t from youtube. Unless youtube is now an official part of Science or Nature.
Your appeals to authority are both mind-numbing and pathetic. Read the Feynman quote at the top of this blog.
Steve,
regarding appeals to authority. I would not be too hard on Amino. He is on your side remember,
but I am asking for scientific analysis that is in a recognized scientific journal that points out the obvious fraud that you have pointed out has been perpetrated by Hansen. I would be happy for just the ones from Christie and Spencer, and the comments on their analysis.
Your endlessly twisted logic and words keep you from understanding the climate.
Steve,
No it is very simple. You have shown Hansen has fraudulently manipulated the global temperature data. Now just show me the science that proves this. As I have said repeatedly the analysis with comments from Spencer or Christie, will be sufficient.
Don’t attribute your distorted thought process and words to me.
Tony Duncan
Just say it—you’re asking for peer reviewed. The peer review process s not perfect.
Let’s see what the NAS has to say about one of the conclusions of Michael Mann’s peer reviewed Hockey Stick Graph:
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”……
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
That worked passed peer review by you people in authority.
typo,
passed peer review by your, not, passed peer review by you
So what people actually say in front of a camera isn’t real. That dovetails perfectly with the assertion that what people actually publish isn’t what they said either. Tony Duncan, you’ve outdone yourself.
Stark,
Hansen says in public that sea level might rise by 5 meters by 2100. he WON’T say that in a scientific paper because he knows and freely admits that there is no scientific justification for that, it is just speculation. there is something called the peer review process which forces people to only print what they think other experts wont be able to to show is wrong, Not saying peer review works perfectly, but I think it is probably better than youtube for examining actual science
Crackpot
Who? Homer or Tony?
Tony Duncan,
Speaking of being on video—how many times does James Hansen put his face in front of a camera? The answer? So much that one would get the impression he is neurotic for it.
And does he have a YouTube Channel?
http://www.youtube.com/user/DrJamesHansen?blend=23&ob=5
You better protest to James Hansen that real science and scientists are not found on YouTube.
Tony Duncan
Still looking for something that isn’t from YouTube? How about the graphs in the videos? Do graph mean anything to you?? Or are you working on your comedy routine? These jokes are poor if you are.
Helloo Tony Duncan,
do graphs mean anything to you?
If a totally objective person came to this debate with no prior knowlege of this issue I guess he would say something like “The data from the earlier decades is obviously so full of errors that need adjusting for that any comparison of current temperatures with them is totally meaningless”.
Or am I missing something, Tony?
PS Have you read that book?
Paul
I wonder if Tony Duncan is a computer generated bot?
Could you please post the actual temperature data and then can you replot it, showing also the extended record since 2000. Also, could you please plot the global data since climate projections show that the warming signal appears to be stronger at high latitudes than at mid-latitudes. Thanks for the complete picture.
This is US temperature data and as far as I know Hansen has never made it available. You can contact him at Columbia University.
Mark:
What you are looking for has already been posted on many sites over the years. Welcome to the Climate Party but you will need to do a lot of catch up reading.
On this website, there have been many, many charts posted that clearly indicate that Hansen is obviously warm biasing the Arctic and other places where supposedly there is little actual data, so obviously so that it is a complete joke.
So either all those depictions at this site are a fraud, or Hansen is a fraud. Common sense would favor the latter.
Hansen is only providing Value Added “Corrections” to the “Reputable” NCDC work. Best described as GIGO!
Base period is not important because all the current data is related to the same base period during the current modeling procedure, sort of like a new face lift or applying more lipstick to the pig.
If this continues I will have to go out for more popcorn! 8)
It’s sad that people are still denying that we’re influencing the climate change.
How hard is it for people to understand that the most qualified people.. The people that have the funds to do all of the research know that we’re endangering the future of generations to come by continuing to burn fossil fuels at an outrageous rate. It’s crazy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
That site had debunked many of the arguments that are probably made here often.
I see some of you are talking about how we “appeal to authority” but if your car breaks down and you go to have it fixed you trust and understand that the people that fix cars know how to do their job correctly. Guys like Hansen and Gavin obviously know how to do their job correctly and that’s why they work for NASA while others are running hearsay blogs.
Yes, it is very scary. They told us we were going to die from an ice age in the 1970s.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Already debunked.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/1974-the-cia-warned-us/
Just at a quick glance… I don’t see how this debunks Climate Change and the research done now. Obviously the science field has made progressions since the 70’s. Besides, as it shows in the link I posted there were more predictions of Global Warming than they were Global Cooling.
Umm, no. The link you posit to have shown something says, “The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet” which is an obviously stupid extrapolation. Sorry. 6x as many papers does not in any way equal 6x as many scientists, unless the scientists are themselves papers.
I also doubt that your darling website has access to more than perhaps 10% of the papers published in the 1970s, & further that they correctly restricted the scope of what constitutes a “climate paper”, which hardly makes for an unbiased sample. Perhaps if some half-wit piker had weeks and weeks and an unlimited credit card they could accrue a sufficient sample size to make for a reasonable statement. Until then, as someone who was actually alive back then, I presume that you are full of what you ate three days ago.
In summary: your submoronic website claims that scientists are papers. You fail.
Stark,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
“Guys like Hansen and Gavin obviously know how to do their job correctly and that’s why they work for NASA ” ROFL!
Your headlight fluid needs topping up.
Rube.
Tony Duncan:
“Surely there has to be ONE scientist who is not cowed by the tyrannical Gore/Soros/Hansen mob…”
Tony, you disappointed me by not including the Illuminati/Reptilian/Girl Scouts. Their secret headquarters is in Kenya with branch offices in Indonesia and Hawaii.
“I see, you want someone who’s living and ability to support their family depends on concern about global warming, to undermine global warming,…”
Steve, cherries are cherries, will forever be cherries.
In any case, your logic applies to scientists and Astronauts whose living depended on a Moon landing. Please note that those multicolored boxes are links to a wide variety of evidence. This has been very well researched.