Archive for the ‘Hansen – NASA GISS – NOAA – HadCRU – CSIRO’ Category

You gotta feel sorry for these guys — they’re miserable

01/01/2010

“It is now universally recognized [!] within science that humanity is confronting the prospect — if we do not soon change course — of a planetary ecological collapse. … [T]he global ecological crisis [is] becoming more and more severe, with the time in which to address it fast running out … This tragic failure, I will argue, can be attributed to the refusal of the powers that be to address the roots of the ecological problem in capitalist production and the resulting necessity of ecological and social revolution. …

When we speak today of the world ecological crisis, however, we are referring to something that could turn out to be final, i.e., there is a high probability, if we do not quickly change course, of a terminal crisis — a death of the whole anthropocene, the period of human dominance of the planet. Human actions are generating environmental changes that threaten the extermination of most species on the planet, along with civilization, and conceivably our own species as well.

What makes the current ecological situation so serious is that climate change, arising from human-generated increases in greenhouse gas emissions, is not occurring gradually and in a linear process, but is undergoing a dangerous acceleration, pointing to sudden shifts in the state of the earth system. We can therefore speak, to quote James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the world’s most famous climate scientist, of “tipping points…fed by amplifying feedbacks.”” “Why Ecological Revolution?

Advertisements

Adjusting produces the warming

12/17/2009

What was learned

In comparing the difference between the [adjusted] and RAW [U.S.] temperature trends, Balling and Idso found a nearly monotonic increase of over 0.05°C per decade, which they found to be highly significant at the 0.0001 level of confidence. In addition, they found that “the trends in the unadjusted temperature records [were] not different from the trends of the independent satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements.”

What it means

In the words of the two Arizona State University Office of Climatology researchers, the adjustments that were being made to the raw USHCN temperature data were “producing a statistically significant, but spurious, warming trend” that “approximates the widely-publicized 0.50°C increase in global temperatures over the past century.” It would thus appear that in this particular case of “data-doctoring,” the cure was much worse than the disease. And it likely still is! In fact, it would appear that the cure may actually be the disease.

Unfortunately, it also appears that the disease has spread, both far and wide, and become a global pandemic; for Klotzbach et al. (2009) have recently found that for the updated period of 1979-2008, “there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC [the U.S. National Climate Data Center] and HadCRUT3v [University of East Anglia] surface data sets when compared with the [satellilte-derived] lower-tropospheric data sets.” And they note that Santer et al. (2005) have said that such could occur “if the surface warming had been over-estimated by 0.05°C per decade in the IPCC data,” which is the very same difference that Balling and Idso obtained.” “A Warming Bias in the U.S. Temperature Record???

Hansen’s adjusting — Nashville, Tennessee

12/12/2009


“The GISTemp homogeneity adjustment looks a little hockey-stickish, and induces an upward trend by reducing older historical temperatures more than recent historical temperatures. This has the effect of turning what is a negative trend in the HadCRUT3 [raw] data into a positive trend in the GISTemp version: [graph]

So what would appear to be a general cooling trend over the past ~130 years at this location when using the unadjusted HadCRUT3 data, becomes a warming trend when the homogeneity adjustment is supplied.” “Would you like your temperature data homogenized or pasteurized?

Adjusting Darwin — "the smoking gun"

12/08/2009




[Top graph]: “YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C. …

[Bottom graph]: Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list. …

Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941.” “The smoking gun at Darwin zero

Monumental hubris from NOAA

12/07/2009

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.” “Dr. Lubchenco Responds to Questions About Stolen Climate Emails

Heating up

12/03/2009

“Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, sent a letter today to the Inspector General of NASA requesting an investigation into NASA’s apparent obstruction of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The FOIA requests seek NASA’s temperature record and agency emails concerning changes agency researchers made to the temperature record in 2007.

“It is our understanding that these FOIA requests have been outstanding for two years,” Vitter and Inhofe wrote. “We request that you investigate the reasons for the delay in not responding by the statutory deadline. This review should include all the communications between the requester and any employee of NASA or its subsidiary organizations concerning the FOIA requests.”” “VITTER, INHOFE ASK NASA IG ABOUT AGENCY’S POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF FOIA REQUESTS

GISS winter warming bogus?

10/13/2009

“Having discovered [see posts here] that the average of [GISS surface temperature station] thermometers shows warming, but concentrated into the winter months, and that the added temperature showed up coincident with the arrival of a large number of short lived thermometers, I decided to explore this a bit more, to the next reasonable level. …

We have seen that there is a clear set of stations that enter the record with very warm winter temperatures. This happens relatively recently in time, and constitutes the bulk of the “winter warming signal”. The seasonal profile of these data strongly indicate a non-Northern Hemisphere location for many of them (that can be accurately identified from the station records in a future investigation). Furthermore, the arrival (and departure) of these stations roughly matches the “Global Warming” pattern.

Finally, and in some ways most significant: Summers do not warm

In all of these quartiles we have summer averages that run about 20C and are consistently that temperature over the entire time.

If there were a CO2 (or other “greenhouse gas” ) induced general warming of the record, and especially if there were a temperature driven positive feedback mechanism of any sort, we would not have such dramatically stable summer averages spanning a couple of hundred years, a dozen thousand of thermometers, in all quartiles of the data.” (emphasis in original) “GIStemp Quartiles of Age Bolus of Heat” h/t Jeff Id

Stonewalling at UK Met Office continues

07/23/2009

“It must be humiliating for the UK Met Office to have to protect Phil Jones and CRU. Even a seasoned bureaucrat must have winced in order to write the following:

Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.

UK Met Office Refuses to Disclose Station Data Once Again

What would alarmists do without words like "unprecedented", "accelerating", "dramatic", and "rapid"?

07/07/2009

The arctic was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than today, and AGW had nothing to do with it, but that won’t stop NASA from this alarmist story:

“Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.” “New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning

They certainly are fascinated with drama all right.

Major report by Anthony Watts on junk surface stations

05/04/2009

“Executive Summary: Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made.

The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in the U.S., many of them demonstrating vividly the siting issues we found to be rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been surveyed so far can be found at http://www.surfacestations.org, where station photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name.” “Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?” h/t Roger Pielke Sr.