Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record. The Northern Hemisphere used to have a broken hockey stick problem. According to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975, the hemisphere had cooled 0.7C since the 1930s, and was colder than it was at the turn of century.
Dr. Hansen realized he had a problem when he took over – that data didn’t look anything like a hockey stick. So he fixed it! You can do such cool stuff when you are pushing an agenda, and you control the historical record.
The figure below shows Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.
But that was just the beginning of Hansen’s history rewrite. He had another problem – the United States. Until the year 2000, the US temperature graph looked almost identical to the 1975 NAS Northern Hemisphere graph. fig1x.gif (500×182)
Hansen’s problem was that he had fixed the data for the rest of the world, but the US data was still not looking like a hockey stick.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
Phil Jones and NOAA had clearly stated that there was no warming in the US.
February 04, 1989 Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings. Global Warmth In ’88 Is Found To Set a Record – New York Times
In 1999, Hansen himself said that he didn’t see anything happening in the US.
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country
Undaunted by reality, all the evidence, and millions of temperature records – in the year 2000 Dr. Hansen and Tom Karl at NOAA adjusted the US temperature record to make it look like Hansen’s already adjusted global temperature record.
Below is an animation of their handiwork. 1934 was no longer the hottest year, and the 1930s was no longer the hottest decade. Hansen essentially erased the Dust Bowl.
Conclusion. US and global surface temperature records are so corrupted as to be meaningless. Below are some news stories from the 1930s. July of 1936 was the hottest month in US history. The summer of 1934 was the worst drought in US history. Half of the lower 48 states set their all-time temperature record during the 1930s. The most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US happened in 1935.
The Tuscaloosa News – Google News Archive Search
12 Apr 1935 – DUST BLAST AGAIN SWEEPS MID-WEST U.S.A. Last Hop…
02 Aug 1934 – AMERICAN DROUGHT. Human Death Roll Reaches 1,350.
28 Jul 1934 – AMERICAN DROUGHT DESTRUCTION OF CATTLE HEAVY HUM…
Please don’t give Chiropractors a bad name by association with this fool.
Hansen – Not the climate chiropractor, more like a climate proctologist.
What’s the point of having power if you can’t weild it?
The fact is James Hansen has altered the temperature records that were on record for the period. We no longer have valid temperature data dating to the turn of the 20th century and it can’t be rebuilt. He altered the data. As such, in a scientific community, that data is now false and not usable. He has done damage to the records that cannot be repaired.
This is a crime against science. Important temperature data lost forever because of ine lunatic’s absurd agenda. The real problem is that he has many following in his footsteps.
It does no good to use science to refute the Democratic left. If these people could think they would not be Democratic lefties in the first place. Whether it is Sharpton, Obama, Chris Matthews or …, logic and data mean nothing.
Plenty of quotes against here
Pretty funny–if you look at the very first graph you can see it was doctored to leave out the period after 1970–the period when global warming was strongest. Such a cheap trick–amazing anyone falls for you frauds.
This may well be the stupidest comment I have seen yet.
liberals have some serious reading comprehension problems…..
” According to the National Academy Of Sciences in 1975,”
“This may well be the stupidest comment I have seen yet.”
Well, that is pretty impressive.
Can you explain why it is stupid, though?
You posted a graph that deleted the years after 1970. Do you deny that? And those years are the years with the most warming. Do you deny that?
Perhaps you will next try to prove that Hitler did not start any wars…by posting data that leaves out the years after 1932.
Bill, when was that graph published………..
Hint #2: Y axes don’t lie.
Incidentally, while the original link at the top has since rotted away, the article is still available here:
Click to access SN1975_Climate_change_chilling_possibilities.pdf
If you download and examine this 1975 article, you will see the graph, exactly as it appears here.
Hitler, too, did not make many references to the history after the 1970s in his book Mein Kampf, only history of the early 20th century and before. It would be silly to say that he “deleted” history that had not happened yet. Hitler warned about the future, and what he thought should be done to make it better. (Totalitarians always arrive on the scene as “protectors.”)
The article linked to above, “Chilling Possibilities,’ warns about the future in much the same way, with what the article itself describes as “please for immediate action” to “change the climate” (page 138, the first page of this article). From the next page:
Your mistake may be an honest one, but you owe Mr. Goddard an apology.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Totalitarianism has quite a specific formula and an often repeated script. This documentary explains this very well and relates this to the current state of affairs in our own country. It is an eye opening documentary.
Stupid because that chart is dated from the 1970’s and in a 1970’s publication.
New Link to the original.
But why would you post a graph from 1975 when there are graphs that are from 2013?
You CHOSE to post a graph that lacked important available data. Get it?
Why did you chose a graph incomplete in an important way?
Perhaps next you can “prove” Israel does not exist by posting a map from 1946.
Bill, the whole point is to show that the temperature data has been tampered with since the National Academy of Sciences published it in 1975. The current data being published by NASA is a fraud.
History doesn’t change.
Does this mean you didn’t THINK on what you read here?
It was obvious to me that Steve was showing large changes to the temperature data made by James Hansen over time.Changes that goes way beyond the level that existing data would permit.
The graphs from 2013 have been tampered with. In order to demonstrate that tampering, it is necessary to compare them to graphs that have not been tampered with. The old graph is used as a source of unbiased, un-tampered with data. If he compared a tampered graph to another tampered graph, he would be the IPCC. Get it? Just for laughs, I explained it to my second grader, and he got the concept without difficulty. I honestly don’t believe that you are less intelligent than a seven year old child, which means that you are so blinded by your ideology that you are completely blinded to even simple truths.
“liberals have some serious reading comprehension problems…..”
The irony is that your claim that I am a liberal is based on you not being able to read at an adult level. I said nothing even suggesting I am a liberal.
You must be even more fun in person–whenever someone disagrees with you, do you yell that he is a liberal?
Bill, you are wasting your time playing in this sand box…
…but no more of mine
Your type is a dime a dozen
“Bill, you are wasting your time playing in this sand box…
…but no more of mine
Your type is a dime a dozen”
“It does no good to use science to refute the Democratic left. If these people could think they would not be Democratic lefties in the first place. ”
Ironically, a post using primitive thought refers to other people supposedly not being able to think deeply.
BTW, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are liberals. Are they stupid? Einstein was an ultra-liberal. Did he have any of those problems with science that you refer to?
Bill, you still haven’t answered my question. Is it OK for NASA to doctor past temperature records? Do temperatures from 1936 change over time?
Buffet and Gates are pragmatists, taking action to accomplish their goals within (and taking advantage of) the politics and economics of the day. Each of them, incidentally, thinks that Obama is rather foolish and wrong. They are not stupid, but they (especially Buffet) have been tempted into crony capitalism. Buffet’s involvement in Keystone and in the “Buffet Rule” are patently self-serving crony capitalism escapades. The system incentivizes such bad behavior; I’m in favor of getting government out of business, rather than jailing the businessmen involved.
To Gates’ credit, he’s been less ensnared by this. But it was his resistance to such influence, in part, that led the liberal Clinton administration to attempt to destroy him, with Gore’s personal attorney David Boies leading that charge.
Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, and a rather naive thinker in the world of politics. His support for Communism, even after that death toll of millions, did not serve him well. He is a shining example that a person’s brilliance in one field of endeavor does not automatically extend to all fields. A number of his quotes in political fields look bad indeed from this distance, but looked bad to many even at the time. I wasn’t paying attention to Einstein’s views on politics as he voiced them; that came later.
His support for a global, authoritarian regime is right up there with his support of a “cosmological constant.” Both were beliefs passionately held even after the facts available at the time showed them wrong.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
“Bill, you still haven’t answered my question. Is it OK for NASA to doctor past temperature records? ”
Next you will ask me if I think it is OK for Obama’s children to have murdered Elvis Presley
No, I asked you if it is OK for NASA to doctor past temperature records, which is exactly what they have done. The animation below alternates between NASA 1999 published temperature and their current version.
I can’t answer a simple question,therefore throw a quick tantrum instead.
Hmmm – I smell a dunce cap I think….
Crickets…. as expected
“Crickets…. as expected”
This one thinks he has me because I did bot respond in less than 60 minutes.
Have the Koch Brothers send some money my way, and maybe I will spend most of my entire waking life on this website.
Throughout, you have been having a problem with what the various graphs you post are actually referring to. For example, you show two graphs at the very top of this page, and claim that because they do not match that some funny business is going on. But if you were careful you would have noted that one graph was for the Northern Hemisphere and one is for latitudes between 90 and 23.6. So it is not fraudulent that the graphs do not match.
You also have your graphics switching back and forth between two supposed Hansen graphs of the U.S. that look different. But one is for “U.S.” and one is for CONTINENTAL U.S. One includes Alaska, which has a non-trivial size and which, as part of the Arctic has been heating faster, and one does not contain Alaska. So it is perfectly expectable that the graphs would look different–they are not for the same thing.
You are digging your hole deeper. The tampering is even worse for the entire northern hemisphere. You still haven’t explained why you believe it is OK for NASA to tamper with historical temperature data.
Really are you having that much trouble following the obvious here?
The 1970’s chart is a starting point showing a strong 1930’s-1940’s warming peak.Then in 1999 the last fairly clean chart from Hansen shows the early 1940’s to be clearly warmer than in 1998.
“Until the year 2000, the US temperature graph looked almost identical to the 1975 NAS Northern Hemisphere graph.”
He then shows the chart.
Meanwhile when will you address the obvious about large changes made by Hansen?
“You are digging yourself even deeper. The graph looks even worse for the entire northern hemisphere”
It doesn’t matter what looks “worse”–you got caught saying some fraud was involved because two graphs did not match. I pointed out that the graphs really were not of the same thing, and thus should not be expected to match. You are trying to weasel out.
As for the “worse” thing, of course the Northern Hemisphere looks worse– it contains a smaller fraction of readings in the Arctic, the region heating the fastest. But if you include the years pasat 1970, then even the “worse” graph shows very rapid warming.
You are trying to change the subject again. The discussion is about NASA data tampering from the period prior to 1975, which I have demonstrated clearly for both the US and the entire Northern Hemisphere
You have yet to admit your error in accusing me of tampering with the NAS graph, and are going to be spam soon because you show no indication of intellectual honesty or curiosity.
“and are going to be spam soon because you show no indication of intellectual honesty or curiosity”
You don’t react well to being shown you are wrong.
“You are trying to change the subject again. The discussion is about NASA data tampering from the period prior to 1975, which I have demonstrated clearly for both the US and the entire Northern Hemisphere”
No. You are not getting it.
You compared two graphs involving the Northern Hemisphere and were ouraged they were different, and you claimed it was fraud. I pointed out that they were not graphs of the same thing–one was for “Northern Hemisphere” and one was for “Northern Hemisphere for latitudes of 23.6 to 90”. So the reason why the graphs looked different was nit fraud.
Likewise you saw two graphs for the US. which where different and again yelled fraud In reality one was for the continental U.S. and one was for the U.S. The graphs were different because one contained Alaska, a huge chunk of land heating faster than the rest of the U.S., and one did not.
Your time here is over. You are a spectacularly dishonest person.
For people who are deeply invested in the AWG scam it might be hard for them to comprehend the significance of data tampering, present and past.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Back in 2010, I was flying back from Portland to Los Angeles, sitting next to a BP employee. We discussed this issue, and he encouraged me to take a Glacier tour. He implied that the glaciers in Alaska were growing, not shrinking.
shrinking, portage glacier could be accessed frm the road in 1976, you now have to take a boat rideto get to the base of it
Ive always wondered what the error bars are on these various temperature measurements as well as the standard deviation? Is the error as large as the supposed change in temperature? My guess is that it most likely is or very close. Thus, your measurement is in error by the same amount of change. Along the same lines, how carefully were these measurements taken? Same place, same time, same surroundings? I’d imagine if data were collected in the middle of a forest in 1900 and 100 years later that forest is now a concrete jungle, the measured temperature might be a bit different.
Alaska and Hawaii became States in 1959. Prior to that the entire U.S. was the continental U.S.
While they were Territories it is unlikely they would have been included in any study/recording of “U.S.” Temperature readings prior to 1959. Unless the authors of the study or data collection went back and tried to add in pre1959 data from Hawaii and Alaska there would be no baseline for a continental vs “US” differentiation even after 1959. The U.S. was only “continental” prior to 1959 and thus the 1930-1940 data should be the same regardless of the name. It is indeed “apples to apples”. Unquestionably NASA doctored the data. Mr. Goodman’s attempt to defend those bureaucratic changes neglects to take this fact into account.
Too bad they don’t tar and feather people anymore, because Hansen clearly would be a prime candidate for his climate change snake oil.
If you all are so convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy, use your superior intellects to build a climate model that can reproduce today’s climate and maintain a livable biosphere and temperature when CO2 levels go up to 450 or 600 or 900 or 1000 ppm CO2 along with Methane and other gases. That would put Hansen in his place as the liar and fraudster that you accuse him to be.
Until you produce a better model of how the climate system works, I’ll trust the vast majority of scientists who recommend that we decrease and eventually stop emitting greenhouse gases since all our best evidence from numerous sources indicates that it could devastate our economy and our society.
For those who actually want to understand why the graphs changed, you can read about it in this paper: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
It appears to come down to the fact that temperature data need to be corrected for urban effects (heat absorption changes as you urbanize a landscape and add concrete and burning) on weather stations. When you correct temperature using modern computers, the 1930s in the US look slightly cooler (but still very hot compared to the 1951-1980 standard period, as emphasized by everyone including Hansen and Mann). Since computers have improved a little bit since 1975, its not surprising that our model of what the temperature changes have been would also change. For example, bad readings can be easily picked out now when they would be difficult to detect using 1975 capabilities. If Hansen’s method is faulty, you can easily use his data to do it right. See the first paragraph. Put up or shut up. Casting doubt (falsely) on one small part of a complex, well-tested theory does not invalidate the theory.
It’s been done numerous times, however since warmist controlled publications have agreed to not publish any contrarian facts they can not be published in warmist journals.
My theory is that warming is caused by Gaia. Gaia requires human sacrifices, specifically beautiful virgins to be thrown alive into active volcanoes.
Warming as shown by Hanson, began in the 1950s, coinciding with the introduction of playboy magazine and the push for recreational premarital sex and the following sexual revolution.
Hugh heffners’s publishing and similar efforts have shifted human behavior so that we no longer have the needed supply for virgin volcanic sacrifice.
Obviously climate change is the responsibility of Hugh Heffner.
This theory is just as believable as trace gasses and sounds far more interesting than anything Algore has suggested.
climate models you say http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000036254
nice to see the younger generation finally getting it
Which data set do we need to use to build the model? pre-Hansen… post-Hansen?
@ Will Mackin:
“build a climate model that can reproduce today’s climate and maintain a livable biosphere and temperature when CO2 levels go up to 450 or 600 or 900 or 1000 ppm CO2 along with Methane and other gases.”
Don’t need a “model” when I’ve got real-world data. Specifically the paleoclimate: 460 million years ago, the CO2 levels were (ready for this?) 4400 ppm. That’s not a typo. Four thousand, four hundred parts per million.
And we were in a deep ice age. Not roasting. Not “runaway greenhouse effect”. No “tipping point”. 4400 ppm CO2 and deep ice age.
For the last 4 billion years, Earth has normally (~80% of the time) been too warm for permanent, year-round ice anywhere on the planet. The times (200 million years here, 90m million years there, 30 million years another time) when there HAS been, say, polar ice and glacial sheets, geologists call “ice ages”. Abnormal times. boyo.
There is ZERO correlation between CO2 and temperature — except in reverse: when the oceans warm, they lose CO2 to the atmosphere 800-1000 years later just exactly the way your warm soda pop goes flat faster than your cold soda pop; then when the oceans cool, they absorb CO2 again 800-1000 years later.
Even Venus is no hotter than it “should” be due solely to being closer to the sun — not when pressure effects are accounted for. Specifically, at the height in Venus’ atmosphere where the air pressure is equal to Earth at sea level, Venus is JUST as much hotter as — and no hotter than — proximity alone would make it, just as if 960,000 ppm CO2 didn’t matter.
Absence of (real-world, not computer-modeled) correlation -> absence of causation.
Get out of your computer-modeled fantasy world and deal with reality, hey?
@ Will Mackin: “build a climate model that can reproduce…CO2 levels go up to 450 or 600…”
One of the things that disturbs me as a scientist about climate scientists is their departure from the scientific method. Carl Sagan was a hero to me growing up. He taught of “Occam’s razor”, that one should accept the simplest explanation, the one requiring the least amount of presumptions, lacking evidence of the contrary. As Steve showed us, extreme weather has always been. And we all know the history of alarmists. We had the weather alarm sounded in the US in 1973 of impeding doom of entry into the next ice age. (I see above they were still sounding that alarm as late as 1975.) Will Mackin, the burden of proof of doom falls on the one sounding the alarm (and who have a hold of the Treasury spigot).
I am more miffed since I had believed the alarm until did my own investigation into the physics of the claim and my own look at the Paleo-records for temp vs. CO2. I was shocked to learn that although the first studies saw a correlation between CO2 and temp., further study with higher resolution could see that the CO2 lagged temperature change, not led. The alarmist’s answer demonstrates some stubborn desperation in claiming that this is just as they feared, a dangerous positive feedback that could trigger run-away warming. I found the opposite true. First, it never happened in the (now very extensively reconstructed) paleo record. Second, the hypothesis behind the Green House Effect admits that CO2 has diminishing punch due to already existing saturation of it’s effect at current concentrations. So doubling the amount from here does not double the effect (if there is any left). That last question is a currently impossible question to model due to the complexity of the physics and real world feedbacks and unpredictability. This is why all the models have grossly overestimated their prediction of warming for the past 17 years. It’s not science until your skeptics can reproduce your results or you can make an accurate prediction that would be abnormal otherwise.
This is the reason why you have politicians parroting their newly promoted Goddard Institute Director’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year (by 0.03C) is because they don’t want to utter the embarrassing admission that the models need a correction again, (the 4th time). They also forgot to mention that the margin of error in their record is +/- 0.09. The director sheepishly admitted the next day on page 53 there is a 38% confidence in it being any warmer.
Is a nationwide listing of DUI attorneys.
Global Warming and the Microwave Background
Dept. of Radiology, The Ohio State University, 130 Means Hall, 1654 Upham Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
In the work, the importance of assigning the microwave background to the Earth is addressed
while emphasizing the consequences for global climate change. Climate models
can only produce meaningful forecasts when they consider the real magnitude of
all radiative processes. The oceans and continents both contribute to terrestrial emissions.
However, the extent of oceanic radiation, particularly in the microwave region,
raises concerns. This is not only since the globe is covered with water, but because
the oceans themselves are likely to be weaker emitters than currently believed. Should
the microwave background truly be generated by the oceans of the Earth, our planet
would be a much less efficient emitter of radiation in this region of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Furthermore, the oceans would appear unable to increase their emissions in
the microwave in response to temperature elevation, as predicted by Stefan’s law. The
results are significant relative to the modeling of global warming.
Click to access 1310.0128v1.pdf