Prior to the year 2000, the two hottest years in the GISS US record were 1934 and 1921 respectively. 1998 was the third hottest year, and more than half a degree cooler than 1934.
This of course made no sense to Hansen, because CO2 has increased a lot since the 1930s. Einstein once said “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
Hansen apparently took him literally.
I beleive that was Trenberth that said that, not Einstein.
Here is what a NASA scientist said about GISS Surface data:
As reported in a NASA memo to USA Today’s weather editor from Reto Ruedy at GISS: “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.”
This data is not accurate enough for Hansen to make claims about hottest year or decade, or whatever, especially when talking about tenths of a degree.
NASA adjusts their data to fit their models:
You have shown this before. it is ironclad PROOF of fraud.
Just show this to Lindzen, Christie and Spencer, and they will publish a paper exposing this completely arbitrary change, and Hansen will be publicly humiliated, out f a job, and the whole GW house of cards will fall down. And if they are in on the scam (though you have said that it is not a conspiracy) just show it to the NY times, and when they check it out and determine that there is absolutely no justification for this gross manipulation of data, THEY will be the ones to break the story, and both you and the Times will be lauded as heros
If he would show the code and rationale for his adjustments, maybe someone could perform a proper analysis, but big Jim won’t let put it out there so everyone has to speculate. Obviously he is very confident in his procedures and is sure that the recent divergence of his data set from the other two would stand up to such an analysis. That is why he keeps it all a secret?
Nothing disconcerting about devoting your life to proving a cause, and then later changing the data to fall in line with your politics. Happens all the time. Nothing to see here, move along.
It’s an amazing thing when the fox is in charge of the chicken coup and chickens keep disappearing. Don’t even ask questions, nothing to see here for sure!
Did the chickens hold a coup? It is about time. ;^)
Steve, that is what happens when your typing muscles gets ahead of your grammer mussels.
Poopdeck Pappy : “Eat your spinach, you no good infink. Eat it. EAT IT. Eat it. ”
Next time I will go with the rooster being in charge of the hen house……cause it’s obvious someone is getting screwed.
Steve and glacierman,
So Lindzen, Christie and Spencer ARE in on it? ALL climate scientists just blindly accepted Hansen’s Adjustment without even wondering about whether it is valid or not. Please show me their response to this.
UAH satellite data from the 1930s show that it was hotter than hell. WTF are you talking about?
As usual you try to deflect. Hansen should publish the raw data and the adjustments with the procedure used and his justification for adjusting the data. Then the scientific community could evaluate what he has done.
Of course it would be a lot harder to scare everyone into destroying the economy of the free world.
So, you just accept whatever Hansen says? Not everyone is as smart as you Tony.
WHAT am I trying to deflect? I am ASKING why there is no huge outcry from climate scientists demanding to see what you are asking for.
who CARES whether I accept what Hansen says. When did I ever say anything like that? the question is WHY are all the other scientists accepting it on faith? Steve says this is not a conspiracy but it sure looks like it walks like a duck to me.
You know as well as I do that those initial UAH records are almost impossible to calibrate. First off the vacuum tubes for the radio caused so much interference that the morse code signals were totally undecipherable (little joke there, get it?). Second the onboard abacus was jostled SO much in the terrible wind sheer from the tremendous speed needed to maintain orbit at 55,000 ft, that almost all the readings were gibberish. And Roosevelt forgot to hire someone that knew how to set up an abacus, so the initial parameters were hash as well.
nice try though.
Tonyd says: WHAT am I trying to deflect? I am ASKING why there is no huge outcry from climate scientists demanding to see what you are asking for.
Who brought up Lindzen Spencer and Christie? You did. That has nothing to do with Hansen’s data manipulatilon. Nice try. It is up to Hansen to do proper science, with proper documentation of methods. He only gets away with it because he serves a purpose to achieving a desired outcome.
So it is o.k. if Hansen adjusts data to fit his models and doesn’t show what he did as long as there is no outcry? Very telling.
BTW there has been an outcry for exactly that for years. Everyone knows Hansen won’t give it up willingly and he will protect it as long as he is able.
Please keep doing what you do Tony, you are providing a great service.
outcry from WHOM? you still have not supplied me with evidence that other climate scientists say Hansen is hiding an arbitrary manipulation of data.
as Steve said if an accountant did this he would on his ass. Show me documentation of of those skeptic climatologists saying that Hansen arbitrarily raised late temps and arbitrarily lowered early ones and i will start believing this.
It seems to me that Christie and Spencer would be demanding Hansen’s resignation every day if they thought he was doing that. Maybe I have missed that. it is quite possible.
So please STOP deflecting and give me some evidence!
Your mind is one continuous strawman.
explain to me how asking for information is a strawman.
Are you saying that just because you and your loyal followers say it is so, i should just believe it? isn’t there a phrase for that?
and glacierman are you saying that because other climate scientists are too stupid to know that they should demand the information, that Hansen should explain to them that they SHOULD demand it and then give it to them? Doesn’t sound like something an evil mastermind would do.
Your dysfunction is to focus on one tree and miss the forest. No one can get inside Hansen’s head, but we can see that his data has been continuously adjusted to meet his belief system. You fail to see that and instead play games trying to find an angle to distract the discussion.
Nothing on this thread is about outcry from other scientists and me providing you with evidence. Again nice try, keep it up.
Ah, that makes it clear. You don’t need to know what any stinking other scientists think. Therefore I am a fool for wanting to find out myself. Is there any sort of penance I can do in order to be forgiven of this sin?
Yeah. I tried to fool you with that one. I just get get ANYTHING over on you guys.
Tony, does Hansen adjust his data to fit his models?
Does he make public how he did the adjustments?
Do you have anythihng to say about the subject of the post other than>………”blah blah blah, Hansen is misunderstood and other scientist are to blame for not proving what he has done”?
Pretty convenient that he is allowed to hide his methods of adjustment so they cannot be evaluated by other scientists.
pretty convenient that all other scientists are too stupid to think that it might be important to know if there are valid reasons for any adjustment, and they just take Hansen’s word for it and don’t care that he is hiding the the fact that it is completely arbitrary and designed to make recent temperatures higher.
That reminds me, cherries are on sale.
Anyway, here we go again.
The U.S. is still not the world. Even If 1934 were to be hotter globally you can be sure that, whatever circumstances led to its being hot, it would have been even hotter with our current situation.
Besides, the Arctic ice cap did not even shrink anywhere near to what it has shrunk in the past few decades. That’s because 1934 did not have 30 years worth of above average temperatures which would slowly accumulate in the oceans. It’s mostly from warmer ocean currents that the ice cap has been shrinking and thinning from below.
The frequency of events Steve. Not the c…..better run before those cherries on sale are cleaned out.
We are all doomed. The ice is a full 0 inches off the Canadian coast.
Can you provide a link to Arctic ice extent in the 1930s so I can review your claims?
Blow – Who said the US was the world? I missed that comment, please reference it.
But you still avoided the issue – WHY did they feel they had to change the data? Maybe hockey plays a part in it?
You might want to make to the Cherry Fest in Traverse City, MI some time. Great event, but they don’t really appreciate people passing gas regularly.
Ill wind blowing says:
July 22, 2011 at 8:21 pm
“Even If 1934 were to be hotter globally you can be sure that, whatever circumstances led to its being hot, it would have been even hotter with our current situation.”
How do you know? CO2 is up and water vapor is down. Measurements of Long wave infrared backradiation show a decline.
If the temperatures have accumulated in the oceans, then it can’t warm the surface at the same time can it?
A bit like the ocean acidification meme, if it’s in the oceans, it’s not in the atmosphere to cause warming. if it’s in the atmosphere, it can’t be in the oceans causing acidification.
The heat has been slowly accumulating in the oceans? The data doesn’t support this statement.
It was a joke Jim but not as you know it.
Steve, you should add the last 11 years to that chart to show the recent downtrend. Contrary to alarmist teaching, the world did not end in 1999.
IWB, you constantly make statements and assumption that are unsupported by data, or you make stuff up. Your side is losing the battle as even “lukewarmers” like Pielke Sr and Judith Curry question the underpinnings of AGW science and actual observations falsify the computer model forecast, oops, I mean “scenarios.” Almost every week a new peer-reviewed paper comes out that knocks yet another hole in AGW theory.
UHI was much stronger in the 1930’s obviously. GISS never monkeyed with the data, not once.
If an accountant did that they would be off to the lockup.
not if they helped make people huge profits from derivatives trading in 2008.
Satellites were extremely reliable before sputnik
Tony Duncan says:
July 22, 2011 at 10:06 pm
not if they helped make people huge profits from derivatives trading in 2008.”
Good analogy. “Not if they helped the Carbon Exchange Profiteers, Renewable Energy Snake Oil Salesmen and Climate Model Scientists make huge profits for more than 20 years.”
got me there. Investment in renewable energy must have been the cause of the economic meltdown. The fraudulent rating and repackaging of derivatives only had a minuscule effect.
I actually KNOW a couple of climate scientists and a one makes over $100,000 in a year! they aren’t out there looking for second incomes like hedge fund managers and derivative traders
Really that blink graph should be Exhibit-A at Hansen’s trial for fraud at the International Climate Court (hey, ICC, get it?)
Sentence: life hard labor at the climate gulags in Siberia. I hear from the AGW cult members that it is much warmer up there these days.
Have you asked them? May we see copies of the letters you sent to all the scientists asking them that question? And why are you asking glacierman what other people are thinking? Is he clairvoyant?
No Phil, I am not clairvoyant. But I have a good bullshit detector.