GISS : Hiding The Decline

The NCAR graph from the 1970s shows a large decline from 1945 to 1970, which does not appear in the current GISS graph, shown at the same scale in red above.

Interesting how the past has changed.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to GISS : Hiding The Decline

  1. sunsettommy says:

    The decline was real and so is James Hansen’s mental health.

  2. Ford Prefect says:

    Like Economics, predicting the past climate is an inexact science.

  3. Malaga View says:

    “He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.”

    George Orwell – from his novel 1984

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    So you are saying that the past temp has purposefully been “modified” in order to make it appear that there was little cooling form the 40’s to 70’s? And that all climate scientists are in on the revisionist version of climate history?
    Is the initial graph from NCAR also a smoothed graph over five year mean, as with the GISS, or are you comparing oranges to tangerines?

    • Mike Davis says:

      TonyD:
      GISS and NCAR both get their data from NOAA CDC. Probably in both value added and raw states. After that they each apply their own secret sauce to enhance the flavor. NASA GISS has an AlGorerythm to add numbers for areas of the globe where there is no data and using fluid historical records (some say NOAA provides the fluid data) the past becomes cooler with each new report.
      It is entirely possible someone thinks their method is the best solution to an unknown problem. As CRU found out last year it may come back and bite after a longer cooling spell. I would expect an update in 6 months to a year in the process to enhance the flavor from NOAA.
      It is Oranges and Oranges but the preparation of the end product is done using different recipes and maybe even different products like one is Orange Marmalade and the other is Orange Sherbet. Of course the providers claim they are both providing Value added Oranges independently of the others.

    • I’m saying that the GISS data is radically different from the NCAR data.

      I am not responsible for whatever is going on in your head.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Steve,
      What do you mean by “radically different”. Read mike’s comment. that makes some sense to me, though I am unsure of the difference between tangerines and orange sherbet. I am waiting to see this conspiracy unmasked. After all in just the last two days you have posted over thirty proofs of the utter stupidity of the idea of ACC. Surely every climate scientist can see that the end is near.
      I wonder what your estimate is for the whole thing to come falling down. Certainly the conspirators can’t keep the truth from real scientists for more than a couple of years. When are the honest climate scientists going to abandon ship?

      • As long as there is weather (or lack thereof) true believers will believe in global warming. Superstitions about the climate (and the need for sacrifice) are as old as the human race.

        This has nothing to do with science. Logic can’t win the battle. Witch burners come and go in cycles.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Steven:
        Or Shamans that demand sacrifice to appease the Gods of weather!
        There is no conspiracy and when given Lemonade some make lemonade and some make Lemon meringue Pie. Without proper ingredients or properly prepared it still tastes like S@@T.
        When all you have to work with is rotten lemons the results will be rotten.
        The players set out to provide evidence to support a fore gone conclusion. From the start it has been said that humans cause climate change even without evidence to support that claim. There is no real world evidence but enough “Proper Adjustments” have created evidence that is plausible garbage.
        NASA GISS admits that what is being delivered as global surface temperatures are model generated estimates based on best guess assumptions that have little to do with reality.
        I do not see how people confuse pie and lemonade but in the climate arena they do! It is almost as if being given orange colored water and believing it is Orange Juice. Add a little gelatin and shredded rubber to the water and pass it off as Marmalade.

  5. etudiant says:

    Very provocative graph.
    The monotonic decline from the late 40s to 1970 would not be removed by 5 year smoothing in the newer data version.
    Even if there are good reasons for the revisions, it is not confidence inspiring when the historic record is materially altered without any explanation or notification.

  6. Petr Baum says:

    Climate alarmists were claiming that we are heading for another ice age in seventies. Is that an explanation of sharp decline in old graph?

  7. Michael says:

    The first link in the article is broken.

  8. Benjamin Franz says:

    The two graphs are different for the simple reason they aren’t measuring the same thing.

    The NCAR graph is for Northern Hemisphere Land Temperatures while the GISS graph is for the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index.

    Which you could have figured out by actually reading the article instead of just looking at the pretty pictures.

    And your link to the article is broken.

  9. Pingback: GISS : Hiding The Decline On Land | Real Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s