1999 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2001 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2012 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
2013 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures – from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered* with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930’s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
Earlier versions showed even more of a decline, but I can’t locate digital data for them.
*Mosher says these adjustments are all first rate science.
Let’s be honest, Mosher would not recognise “first rate science” in the ‘climate narrative’ if it got up and slapped him in the face. Who pays you to shill for them, son ?
Kudos. Very nice work, Steven. To not acknowledge tampering and fraud is to self-declare oneself as a denier.
Bookmarked for posterity.
“*Mosher says these adjustments are all first rate science.”
Proof positive they are complete crap.
Actually makes more sense as “first-rate computer-generated government-funded sciencey stuff”…
Kinda like that truthiness stuff promoted by the Liar-in-Chef.
I wonder what he tells his wife!
No. Neither Josh nor Mosh are needed. Too obscure, too complex.
Established Losers.
Speak to children.
Is it fraud? Is it a story? A very good story?
Six seconds doesn’t tell a story.
Who?
What planet, even?
What potential?
Jim Morrison stole your thunder, forever?
It’s all just a play day?
Go on TV, Steve.
Hansen and GISS admitted in 1999 that the US was very warm in the 1930’s. Oops, they got caught again.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The adjustments are “all first rate science,” huh? But, whether the adjustments are of temperature or sea level or what else not, why are the adjustments ALWAYS to the benefit of the warmers? Always! No, it’s not first rate science, it’s bullshit. First rate bullshit.
Mosher has found his Harold Camping. Nothing will stop him believing that the end of the world is nigh. It truly is amazing how otherwise intelligent people fall for these confidence tricks.
I’d like to see an annual Harold Camping Award for the most creative End of the World claim. The trophy should be a bronzed dog dropping. Mosher might even be a hall of famer in the awards!
Hansen discovers time travel
Selling snake oil in Perth to battle heat
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/32718790?searchTerm=Hansen%20climate&searchLimits=
Darn it, he found the hidden flux capacitor!
They obviously got their hands on Stewie’s Time Machine.
Andy Oz says:
December 21, 2013 at 7:34 am
I’d like to see an annual Harold Camping Award for the most creative End of the World claim. The trophy should be a bronzed dog dropping. Mosher might even be a hall of famer in the awards!
Why bronze ? The real thing would be better. A lovely stinking pile of ….. would adequately describe their science.
STEVE. Thanks for your remarkable work.
Mosher somehow got hooked up in Howsyerfather’s agenda driven drivel maybe 3 years ago. Before that he was reasonable and reasoning. Such a shame when someone has a damascas moment on the wrong road.
He got a big head when he joined the BEST project thats about it me thinks LOL
The Space Science & Technology Committee of the United States House of Representatives were asked to help answer two key questions.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.doc
The late Dr . Glenn T. Seaborg and I were trying to find answers to those same questions when he died in 1999:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0306465620
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Wait, so are you trying to use something that has come from Congress to prove the truth or falsehood on a matter? Yea, good luck with that…..
Nauseating NASA. For 50 years these losers have been trying to torture data so earth looks like Venus. Note to eco fascist losers. Co2 is not a toxin, it is 4/100 of 1 % of atm. gas by weight vs. 95 % on Venus, 95% emitted by Gaia…do you eco-morons see a slight delta in relevancy between the 2 planets ? Thought not.
Steven Mosher is the Rodney Dangerfield of temperature adjustments. He just can’t get any respect.
Their busy rewriting the past any lying about the future plus current times…
Record Global Ice this year is merely a “Speed Bump”…. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
The warmists would call a full blown ice age a speed bump.
Steven–off-topic but had to share. Just had a delicious back-and-forth with someone you might know of: David Appell.
What an appallingly nasty little man he is! Not to mention, an absolutely raving AGW fanatic. He hasn’t even traded in his original AGW catechism for the New Improved Climate Change Book of Prayers, St. AlGore(tm)
You can find it here:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013
He was being hacked to pieces by the other commentators. I’ve seen him before shilling tirelessly for The One True Faith; I think he’s either a masochist, a bot, or such a pathetic inadequate little man that he must attach himself to a Great Cause and associate with those he considers Important People to feel some sense of self-worth.
That or he’s totally delusional.
But he DOES have a PhD in physics. So he’s smarter than you. Or me. Or anyone else.
Which is why he’s basically a jobless androphobe.
From NPR…
“Some cats carry a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii. Infected cats shed embryonic T. gondii, called oocysts, in their feces.
These oocysts are easily transmitted to humans, and researchers have explored their possible link to various mental health problems, including schizophrenia. More recently, studies of school-age children show a correlation between testing positive for T. gondii and having difficulty in school.”
http://www.davidappell.com/
Case closed.
Appell has money tied up in this scam.
Well I don’t know if I believe you now. Because David Appell said you’re a liar.
/sarcasm
🙂
For some reason when I hear the name David Appell I think of idiot savant, and scenes from the film 1988 Rain Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKC3W0awjm0?
Conclusion-AGW is a load of feline faeces.
Who is Steven Mosher? The dude from WUWT?
He’s a loud mouth narcissistic asshole who started out about 5-6 years ago at Climate Audit. Back then he was a bit more subjective referring to himself as a “lukewarmer”, but over time he descended to being another shill for AGW BS, first IIRC by defending Hansen’s adjustments. Although he contributed to outing the Climategate criminals and more recently Peter Gleick, he has since dedicated himself to defending SAT records and rewriting temperature history with Zeke & co. (Muller),
Nowadays he makes a few drive-by posts at WUWT (or even here), insults others disagreeing with him and does not return to defend his statements.
He refuses to explain the upside greenhouse effect, aka the missing hot spot, whereby the surface is warming at a faster rate than the troposphere; diametrically opposed to the basic tenet of AGW.
I think there used to be a Wikipedia entry, but it looks like it has been removed. There’s some info about him in this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437
His comments on WUWT seem to indicate he has some kind of disorder, with some of them being quite incoherent and most being cheap shots because they contain no explanation.
You can find out all about him here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html
Got a link to what Mosher said?
Great post; someone should sue these guys.
That’s a compelling graphic, Steve, but there’s one mistake. The “1999” version (which was archived by the late John Daly, who’s death Phil Jones called “cheering”) is really from 2000 (or perhaps very early 2001). You can tell that it’s from after 1999 because it contains average temperature data for calendar year 1999, which wasn’t available until early 2000.
The warming added by “adjustments” would have been even greater if you’d started with a version of the data from 1999. Unfortunately, that data is nowhere to be found. We have only a graph of it, no data file.
The most telling statistic for these five versions of NASA’s U.S. surface temperature data is the comparison between the 1934 peak and the 1998 peak. Every revision of the data makes 1934 cooler, relative to 1998. The 2012 and 2013 versions have 1998 warmer than 1934. The 2001 version has them almost tied. The 2000 version (from Daly’s website, which you labeled “1999”) shows shows 1934 as 0.25 °C warmer than 1998. But in Hanson’s 1999 graph, 1934 was 0.6 °C warmer than 1998:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
Unfortunately, NASA GISS seems to have “disappeared” the 1999 version of that data, which was depicted in Hansen’s graph. Two years ago I asked the CSRRT (Climate Science Rapid Response Team) to help me find that lost data, but they were stumped; here’s the conversation:
http://tinyurl.com/revstoustemp2
I may try to reconstruct the 1999 version of the data from the graph, using one of the tools discussed here:
http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/main/13599-best-way-extract-data-figure.html
Of course the result will only be approximate.
“methylamine
What an appallingly nasty little man he is! ”
His is not an ‘appallingly nasty little man’, he is an ‘appallingly nasty fat git’,
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/12/1229093410321/david_appell_140x140.jpg
Indeed, a stand corrected sir. Always a pleasure to converse on a site with intellectually honest participants 🙂
Oh, god, I just lost my lunch….
Gail’s comment caused this thread to pop up on my email again…
I’ve just realized who David Appell is…he’s the fatuous prick Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.
No griping in my store!
I saw the zeke video at WUWT. The premise of the entire exercise of ‘homogenizing’/adjusting temperatures was described by Zeke as ‘Come on, now that needs adjusting’.
HTML error. The links to the .txt files:
1999 version : http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2001 version : http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2012 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
2013 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
Appear to go to only two different files. the actual links behind what displays do go to four different URLs. I haven’t verified the links are good, but the above caught my eye.
There are no errors. The 1999 link was archived by John Daly. Two others are from the web archive. NASA overwrites old data.
The displayed addresses are the original addresses where they were found.
Joe Bastardi displays GISS adjustment .gif in yesterday’s weather outlook as does http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/22/veteran-meteorologist-joe-bastardi-on-nasa-november-temperature-a-fraudulent-report-tampering-with-data/
as does who? Link lable lacking.
No Tricks Zone website
It is relatively easy to find out whether the adjustments were legitmate: do the new data conform more or less to the data of the other sources, such as the satellites? If yes, it makes sense, and may be justified by the complicated adjustments necessary for ground-based data. If not, they have indeed some explaining to do.
I am sorry, but it seems that the new lines conform more to the UAH data, so…
Paai
You have satellite data from 1934? Awesome. Must be worth a lot of money.
I must be mistaken, but I thought your graph ran from 1910 to 2000. That means 20 years of satellite data.
Now I wonder if you appreciate how complicated the collecting the data from ground stations all over the world is, especially if you go back in time. Also there is no obvious solution for the adjustment of outliers and missing data. Computing the average global temperature for a year is NOT just adding all readings and dividing by the number of stations. New algorithms an models are developed all the time.
Therefore I rather approve of attempts to re-adjust the results of the ground data so that they fit with the available satellite data, and applying the adjustments also backwards in time for the time before 1980.
I am sorry if you don’t like the results, but just the fact that there are changes does not prove fraud.
Paai
It is the fact the readings are changed, often WITHOUT public documentation that is the problem. SEE Affidavits are for ever
Also the changes are ALWAYS to cool the past and warm the present. This makes anyone with training in statistics raise an eyebrow.
One of the reasons given is TIme of Observation (Tobs) however the Six’s Min-Max thermometer was invented in 1782 and has been in use for over two centuries.
Another reason is the Urban Heat Island Effect but the implementation is to leave airport and city measurements alone and to increase the reading from rural stations.
Then there was The ‘Station drop out’ problem (there are a series of threads on that problem at that website.)
Also see: AGW is a thermometer count artifact
chiefio(DOT)wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/
And The Zombie Thermometers:
chiefio(DOT)wordpress.com/2010/02/15/thermometer-zombie-walk/
The CAGW scientists are running into the problem that there are a heck of a lot of “Citizen Scientists” out there with excellent qualifications who are now digging in the Dung Heap and finding all the dead bodies the CAGW scientists wanted to keep buried.
Their response is to fabricate studies of consensus (97% of scientists believe…) marginalize anyone who disagrees with nasty name calling ‘den!ers’ ‘Flat-earther’…. and if that doesn’t work try to connect the scientists in question to Tobacco or Big Oil (Never mind that Shell Oil funds CRU and Shell VP Ged Davis is an IPCC lead author)
The final ploy is to get the scientist fired or to sue.
The shenanigans would be entertaining if the resulting policies were not killing people.
3,3000 in the UK last winter for example.
Sorry, I must be insane, because I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years. I base this madness on the UAH data as published by John Spencer. And please do not try to cure my insanity with carefully selected data ranges like from 1998 to 2008.
My statistical knowledge does not raise any eyebrows when the data are revised upwards all the time, in fact that is what I would expect with systematic errors.
Also I do not know whether I qualify as a “citizen scientist”, but let us assume for this moment that, with a PhD degree in computer science, I do. In that case I must say that a world wide conspiracy to cook GISS data to comply with satellite data and thus proving a non-existent global warming does look a bit silly to me.
But if you want to go on and believe that, be my guest. Just do not mess up the future of my children.
Paai
Temperatures are well below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C
Steven, “citizen scientists” would expect a source for your graph. And I am at this stage not interested in what Hansen predicts, only in the question whether the global temperature is or is not going up.
It makes no sense to discuss possible causes and remedies if we cannot at least reach consensus on that issue.
Traditionally, the range of data to make sense on climate data is 30 years. Based on that definition, and on the satellite data, temperature is rising. I will certainly not say that 30 years is the perfect number of years, and I am willing to discuss other ranges. But I certainly will raise statistical eyebrows if you propose a range that starts in 1998.
Paai
Yes, as you said, you must be insane. Apology accepted.
@gator69: thank you for your demonstration of the level on which the sceptics discuss.
Paai
I am presenting overwhelming evidence of fraud and data tampering on this blog, and you are choosing to ignore it. What does that say about you?
That he is crazy about global warming.
Where is the UHI adjustment? And where did all these stations go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mDaK9bH5o&feature=player_embedded
Developing algorithms that use warm biased stations is also not the right way to determine a global average temperature (as if such a thing could be determined). The fact is that the adjusted temps do not match raw satellite observations, and everyone sane agrees there has been zero warming for over 17 years.
But please feel free to share your early 20th century satellite data, we would love to see it.
@gator69: the least you can say about me is that I do not accept wild accusations on some bloggers site at face value.
May I ask you a personal question: do you have much experience with processing noisy data? If so, you can perhaps have an idea of the very real difficulties that you meet. And then perhaps you are not so quick at throwing accusations when you meet results that you do not understand or that do not fit in your view of the world.
Paai
I understand noise just fine, and that is all I get from alarmists. I was a geology/climatology/remote sensing student three decades ago and have followed the science of AGW with intense interest since. I actually read and understand the papers, and ignore rhetoric, you should try that.
Gator, perhaps you should pay more attention to rhetoric, because in that case you might not make so many mistakes against it. Rhetoric is the art of persuading people and insults are very poor tools if you want to accomplish that.
As I said, computing the average global temperature is not a trivial task. So I would like to ask you again if you have any hard evidence that we have intentionally been misinformed, and how that rhymes with the available satellite data? And no, the proof of tampering by the scientists as Steven Goddard presents it here is not convincing.
By the way, have you ever heard of Occams razor?
Paai
Occam’s Razor is what dooms AGW, and yes I am quite familiar with it as I use it to debunk alarmists on a regular basis.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here.
I am not insulting you when I call you insane, it is merely an honest observation.
I provided links to two websites that go into a detailed look at what was done and you completely ignore them.
So here is another where a ‘Citizen Scientist’ is actually collecting the original data from the handwritten logs. http://www.hidethedecline.eu/ You know the data Phil ‘The Dog ate my homework’ Jones lost.
Meanwhile a group over at WUWT is doing the type of rigorous science that is SUPPOSED to be done by our paid public servants but wasn’t. The data is not available yet because the last time some of the data was made public it was stolen and published by Mueller & Co. as BEST.
Meanwhile if you prefer a peer-reviewed paper:
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality
“I am not insulting you when I call you insane, it is merely an honest observation.”
In that case, dear Gator, our discussion is pointless. Thank you again for the demonstration of typical sceptic discussion methods. Bye.
Paai
Thanks for bringing by the pablum. 😉
Dear Steven: I am so glad that you seem to try to establish a real discussion.
You ask why “You alarmists” ignore all actual data. So far I only mentioned the UAH data. Why do you consider those not to be actual data?
Paai
Ignorance is bliss, and that makes our friend Paai the happiest person on the face of the earth.
Dear Kepler, why is it that you sceptics generally behave as high school kids? I mean: every serious attempt to discuss climate, is immediatly countered with insults. But by all means, continue. The more inane and infantile you all behave, the more normal people will turn away.
I apologize to all the intelligent and well-educated high school students that I have met.
Paai
Dear Paai, why is that you alarmists generally ignore all actual data?
Dear Steven: I am so glad that you seem to try to establish a real discussion.
You ask why “You alarmists” ignore all actual data. So far I only mentioned the UAH data. Why do you consider those not to be actual data?
Paai
I showed you that all of the temperature records from RSS up to GISS are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C. You chose to ignore that fact, because you aren’t actually interested in the science.
Half of the time my replies seem to end up with the wrong people. What am I doing wrong?
..posting nonsense
Dear Steven, as I explained above, the first thing we must be certain of is whether the earth is warming up or not. If it is not warming up, we do not have to worry about Hansen, except perhaps to ask him to explain why GISS said it was warming, where UAH said it was cooling. And even then, a scientist would look again at both datasets.
But if in fact we have data we can trust – in the sense that it was not wilfully mispresented or tampered with, and I think we may trust Christy and Spencer – and if that data indicates that warming is real, then we have to worry whether is is man-made or not.
It works both ways: if there is no warming, Hansen and his collegues are totally wrong readjusting the temperature upwards and can be shot as far as I am concerned. But if, in fact, there is warming, they cannot be blamed if they try to fit their calculations to the reality they perceive.
So back to square one: the data. Is, according to UAH and a sensible definition for the sample range, warming occurring or not?
Paai
you ever wonder what all this hysterical bs would look like…
…if it were plotted as a regular thermometer
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Latitude, thank you for your extremely enlightening and adult contributions. I can see that we, alarmists, must be, eh… alarmed… by your intellectual acumen.
Paai
LOL….hysterical BS
Dear Latitude, is the symbol next to your name by accident or on purpose? It looks a bit like a swastika to me. Some people see links between sceptics and far right groups, but I very much hope that this is not the case here.
Paai
You are not interested in discussing science. You are just another troll here to make noise, and will soon be spam.
I am sorry, I can now see that the symbol is an artefact and I apologize for my last remark
being a troll is bad enough…..but rabid ignorance just puts the cherry on top ROTFL
Nazis were the National ‘Socialist’ Party, and that is the far left, not right. The Nazis were about big government and the rights of man. Left.
So far we can rule out the Earth and Political Sciences as possible fields of study our new troll may have experienced.
Dear all. I know it may come as a shock for you, but there really exist people who admit their mistakes.
The dutch, having been occupied by the nazis are perhaps oversensitive to patterns that look as if they have been inspired on swastikas.
I apologize again for my mistake and I hope we may return to climate and global temperature.
Some of the data sets show a small amount of cooling since 1997. Others show a small amount of warming since 1997.
The much more interesting fact is that all of the temperature records show temperatures far below climate model forecasts.
Your obsession with a meaningless and indeterminate benchmark shows me that you aren’t interested in science.
Dear Steven, you were doing so well – until the last sentence. That really was uncalled for. Can we please dispend with the sniping and exchange our views as grown-ups?
I was not talking about benchmarks, only about the importance of whether earth was cooling or warming up vis-a-vis the accusations you levelled at Hansen cs.
Also, in a real scientific discussion you do not talk about “small amounts” without explaining wat reference cadre you were using for “small”.
Finally, about your remark that “all of the temperature records show temperatures far below climate model forecasts”. As a dutchman I really cannot confirm that for this winter (it may well become the warmest winter of the record), but of course, Holland is not the world and it is extremely unscientific to pick out a particular region or particular year as proof for climate change.
Can you give me a pointer to a reliable site or article where all recent climate models are collected, so that I can either confirm or reject your proposition?
By the way, how did you like the article “Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Using Ensembles of Regional and Global Climate Models and Multiple Observation-Based Data Sets from last December”, in the SIAM Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, by Matthew Heaton, Tamara Greasby, and Stephan Sain? Warning: some statistic knowledge is expected and not for the faint of heart.
Paai
Dear Steven, I hope that you will not consider this simple question as Spam and ban me for all eternity from this open and honest discussion site, but why do you take 1997 as starting point for your trend? Do you have a sound, scientific reason, or did you pull that year from a hat?
Paai
mid-1996 is the longest period of time going backwards from the present when the satellite record shows no warming.
However, if the post Mt. Pinatubo cooling years are removed, there is actually no warming since 1991.
Dear Steven, I do not quite understand your technique of going back in time to find a range that shows no warming, at least not as an argument that warming has stopped. Looking at the UAH graph there seems to be considerable warming between 1997 and 2014 and even more from 1991 to now.
Do you have access to a different and obviously better data set than the UAH? Do you use different smoothing algoritms? A better algoritm for trending? If so, should not you share it with me, so we can talk as equals?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Paai,
Compare http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
to http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LI-Holocene.png
Long term the temperature trend is cooling.
Paai,
The real climate debate that has been raging is ignored by the ‘Climate Scientists’ and MSM
The thing is, informed geologists hope and pray Greenhouse Gases can delay the next glacial inception.
Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, was right on time for glacial inception. It occurred when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse, a few centuries older than half a precession cycle. Note that the end of MIS 11, the best analog to the Holocene, had two thermal pulses before the big drop into glaciation. We are not out of the woods yet either because the Earth will remain at or close to the solar insolation that triggers glacial-inception for the next 4,000 years.
If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct it would be GHG emissions that have prevented glacial inception so far.
Now tell me again why we want to lower CO2? Why the IPCC and the US government wants to strip the devil gas from the late Holocene atmosphere? Is it so we can take our glacial inception chances? Really? That is the IPCC and the EPA’s recommendation? According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis we should already be in the next glacial were it not for AGW! So Obama is recommending removing the only (so far) hypothesized glacial inception deterrent!
Not only is that the recommendation but it is backed by questionable temperature data and incorrect Climate models.
Meanwhile the World Bank, Universities and the ultra-rich are doing a massive land grab in Africa and Latin America.
Gee, think they might know something they didn’t bother to tell us peasants?
Gail, you know that CO2 can’t possibly delay the onset of glaciation because the atmosphere is already opaque to IR at the 13-18 micron band.
http://www.hyzercreek.com/Infrared%20Sky%20001.jpg
Look at the difference between 375 and 750 ppm. Nothing. Even 750 ppm won’t do a thing if an ice age starts.
I am a chemist (Geology is a hobby) so I am aware that all CO2 can do is delay the transfer of heat to outer space by a small amount of time. Besides the big influence on the earth’s climate is water in all its manifestations.
What is interesting is the super El Nino in 1997-1998 and the Earthshine Project – Albedo Graph
Oh and the peer-reviewed paper from the September 2012.
Only problem is the CO2 measurements are just as ‘Adjusted” as the temperature measurements.
====
Gail, that’s something that really irks me…..and no one even talks about it
It is a lot tougher for the average person to understand and it has been well buried.
http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
Dear Steven, why do you offer me a graph with a trendline that is so obviously dependent on the 1998 peak? It would be far more convincing if you could make your case without needing that outlier. Can you understand those that would consider this cherry-picking, and what would be your defence in scientific terms?
You said “I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years.”
Steven just provided you with evidence showing that there has been no warming for 17 years. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Dear Kepler, as I have already said, I downloadedd the UAH data and computed the trends myself. I will gladly admit that the warming trend has diminished, but again: the slope did not dip under zero before the yearly variance messed things up from 2005 onwards.
Why don’t you present your own trend algorithm and the graph that goes with it, in stead of relying on others? This goes for all of you.
Paai is the new David Appell avatar. He can’t help stalking Steven G.
I see, you want to throw out the 1998 El Nino, but keep the 1990’s Mt. Pinatubo cooling and the 2010 El Nino. Brilliant.
Paii, if somebody points out that global warming has not increased in 17 years, which 17 years do you suggest he use? I would suggest using the most recent 17 years.
Dear Morgan, this morning I reinstalled gnuplot and downloaded the UAH dataset to find out once and for all how the trends compared. Also I was interested how big the influence of the outlier 1998 was. So I plotted the slopes of the linear regressions from 1979 to 2013 “as is” and once with 1998 averaged between 1997 and 1999.
I really cannot help it, but the slopes remained positive till 2005, when the graph started swinging wildly because of the fact that the yearly variance became too large.
This means that the trend has remained positive and warming has increased.
If you want to, I will gladly present the graphs and the programs for your inspection.
By the way: although the influence of the 1998 outlier was clearly visible from 1990-1997, it nowhere dipped into a negative slope, as in the graph Steve presented.
Paai
Alert the IPCC! Because even they acknowledge ‘the pause’.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
– Dr Pachauri, Chairman IPCC
The lack of warming since 1998 is well documented, and papers are being hastily written trying to explain it away, you are insane.
Paai says:
“Sorry, I must be insane, because I certainly do not agree that there has been zero warming the last 17 years…..”
You are behind the times. The Climate Scientist have finally had to face up to reality.
“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.” (wwwDOT)theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
The UK Met Office:
“July 2013 – Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013….” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
1. Prof. Phil Jones saying in the Climategate emails – “Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Also see: interview with Judith Curry and Phil Jones
2. Ben Santer in a 2011 paper “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” link
3. The NOAA falsification criterion is on page S23 of its 2008 report titled The State Of The Climate
4. we are looking at no changes in temperature over a period longer than the 10 years that James Hansen once said would show the models wrong;
So the falsification criteria is 15 years to 17 years. That is why we start at the present and count backwards. Once we hit 17 years The Goose is Cooked. Unfortunately the Goose seems to be a zombie and keeps rising from the dead.
Anyone have silver bullets, garlic and a wooden stake?
Beats me why people are wasting time explaining something to someone who has already adequately demonstrated they have severe problems understanding anything.
+1.
Complete waste of time.
Dear Dave, can you tell me why you too come with an insulting reaction in stead of valid arguments? Do you really have so little imagination that you cannot even conceive of other people having different ideas?
paai
Dear Gail, I have already said that I am not interested in Hansen and his models, only in the question whether the earth is still warming up,
I have computed the trends for the UAH data again, and nowhere the trend becomes negative, except after 2005, when the variance becomes to large to make sense.
And as I said, everybody is invited to share his or her algorithms and data with mine. If you do not want to do that… well…
Paai
Steve, please drag my comment out of the ether where WordPress booted it for having too many links.
Thanks Steve.
Gentlemen (and ladies), I have tried to have a grown-up discussion with you, and got insults and threats. I offered to share my data and algorithms, and did not even get an answer.
You totally confirmed my idea of climate sceptics. I will leave this site now and leave you to your bigotry.
Paai
Actually, you have shown no interest in discussion or science, and have ignored all of the evidence presented to you.
Yes, you are correct Steve.
Even Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of IDCC) and the UK Met Office have grudgingly admitted no warming for 15 to 17 years after it was shoved in their face enough times.
I always find the global temperature given to 0.01 °C completely laughable to begin with.
The number (Global Temperature) is based on a sample size of ONE. There is no duplication of readings. Each reading represent one reading by one instrument in one spot at one moment in time. Therefore increasing the precision via averaging does not apply. (Increasing the sample size generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy.) This is another of the BIG LIES.
A lot of the data, especially the older data is rounded or truncated to the nearest digit.
“A team of independent auditors, bloggers and scientists went through the the BOM “High Quality” (HQ) dataset and found significant errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records…. Around 30% of all readings in the Fahrenheit era (before 1972) were whole numbers, and about 18% afterwards.” – link
Since the results are only as good as the worse number in the data set, the precision is good only to the nearest whole number and the whole trend is ZERO.
That isn’t even getting into accuracy and mangling the data.
Dear Paai, Thank you for providing us with an excellent example of how alarmist group think can turn so many people into idiots abroad living in climate science fantasy land.
Kepler
Steve,
The first and most obvious act of deception occurred between 1945 and 1946. Mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists all agreed:
In 1945 the interior of the Sun was mostly iron (Fe)
In 1946 the interior of the Sun was mostly hydrogen (H)
This unanimous change of opinions occurred without discussion or debate
Fascinating stuff, omanuel. I’d like to learn more–would you mind posting a link or two?
Coincidentally I bought a little gold on Saturday…it’s on a nice strong upswing in price. In the car I was explaining to my daughter that the metal she was holding was created in only one place in the universe—the inside of an exploding star.
It’s a humbling, amazing thought.
That is true, methylamine. But gold is worthless if the currency crashes.
Here are links to the first two chapters of my autobiography:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_1.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Chapter 2 contains nine pages of precise experimental data that falsify post-1945 models of
1. Stars
2. Nuclei
Steve,
You need to be aware that the spirit of Stalin survived the end of WWII, and will not be easily defeated.
In 1946 George Orwell started writing that warning to the world.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
And in 1946 Fred Hoyle said the internal composition of the Sun was changed from iron (Fe) to hydrogen (H) and was unanimously adopted without debate or discussion. See pp. 153-154.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/093570227X
I will do anything I can to help, but you need to know that you face a most formidable foe in the spirit of Stalin !
Didn’t Niagara Falls freeze solid in 1932?
It froze in 1936, like this year. What is your point?