The graph below merges the 2002 Version Of GISS 1866-1882 NH temperatures, the 1975 National Academy of Sciences 1882-1970 NH temperatures, and RSS 1979-2014 NH temperatures. There have been two cooling periods and two warming periods since 1866, with almost no net change in temperature.
The 2002 version of GISS was the last to include pre-1880 temperatures.
How big is the climate change fraud?? This is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Research from the London-based Overseas Development Institute (ODI) showed 2013 climate finance pledges were 71% lower than the previous year, way off the $100 billion a year rich nations have pledged to deliver by 2020.”
http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/switzerland/4170/figueres-warns-world-is-running-out-of-time-to-agr/
“the estimated $1 trillion per year needed to be invested in clean energy through 2050” – same article. A tiny fraction of that is enough to own the Lamestream media.
We’ve been warned for decades about running out of time, tipping points, worse than we thought, almost too late to act, too late to act, etc.
The only question in my mind is how much longer we will be dealing with catastrophic AGW before alarmists switch to the next doomsday prediction theory and demonize skeptics.
worst photoshop ever.
The temperature scales don’t even line up.
The NAS Y-scale is hand drawn and not exactly linear. GISS uses a different baseline.
I would be happy to highlight your comment in a stupid comment of the day post.
You can’t compare graphs using different baselines without some sort of data transformation.
If you made it past middle school algebra, you know that baseline only affects the offset of a linear equation. They are normalized to their common point of 1882. The graph is correct.
I blame Dmac’s teachers.
Are you still going to ignore that the temperature scale on the first graph doesn’t match the other two?
The temperature scale is identical in all three graphs. The GISS baseline is however different, so it has to be normalized to the common point of 1882. That is the only legitimate way to do this comparison.
April 3, 1893
Tacoma, WA receives four inches of snow.
No warming since 1866? Yeah. sure.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=18930403&id=TxAaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=byAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2697,107890
I was there in 1998 in 12 inches of snow. You have no idea what you are talking about.
It doesn’t snow in April, although it did in Seattle in 1972. It’s too warm now.
Dear Jeff,
Buy a better search engine…
One of Western Washington’s latest lowland snowfalls on record begins on April 18, 2008.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8637
The warm fascists will rewrite the real temp record much as they tried to do with Piltdown Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick and the attempt to wipe away the medieval warm and ice eras. Fascists believe that lies are science.
Great job Steve, these temperatures seem coherent with the reports from newspapers and other sources about the variations during this period, especially in the XX century where the information is more abundant.
I will definitely save a copy of this “multi-plot”, it makes perfect sense IMO.
OTOH, you said
“There have been two cooling periods and two warming periods since 1866, with almost no net change in temperature”
I will disagree a little in this case because the first cooling (from ~ 1885 to 1915) is slightly deeper and longer than the one at the 1960s-70s and the recent peak (basically during the initial years of this century) is a little more “persistent” than the one during the 1930s-40s.
My point is that this is the signature of the strong solar forcing of the XX century, which left some additional heat on Earth, at the end of the century, that only now is starting to be radiated back to outer space.
What impresses me most in this respect is the fact that the temperatures seem to not have increased very much since the end of the XIX century, despite the large sequence of strong solar cycles of the last century, that some researchers characterize as a “grand maximum”.
As Abdussamatov noticed, there seems to exist a general trend downward in solar radiations and the oscillations of each cycle only mask this trend locally.
“… The increase in TSI within a short 11-year cycle 24 is expected to temporarily compensate the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 2-century variation… [the decrease in TSI] … will lead to stable subsequent cooling of our planet, which is expected to reach its minimum in the phase of a deep cooling by 2055–2060 ± 11 … The cooling can be similar to the one observed in the whole Europe, North America and Greenland … in the period of Maunder minimum …”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
and
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
This seems to be also the conclusion of M. Lockwood,
New paper confirms the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-confirms-sun-was-particularly.html
Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
The little variation upward of the average temperatures in nearly 150 years, as you show in your “multi-plot”, despite the grand maximum of solar radiations of the XX century, seems to confirm this trend.
Robert Wood wrote in 1909.
“The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the
atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the
atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to
me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
What I find intolerably sad is that people who claim to be sceptics including all the favourite sons on WUWT try to “prove” this indisputable scientific logic is wrong to defend their precious “greenhouse effect” without realising that Wood is actually confirming that “The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas.” – a type of “greenhouse effect” – albeit not one that causes runaway heating – only the Sun is capable of increasing the surface temperature.
Of course this debunks the “cold atmosphere heats the warmer surface” myth promoted as “science” and defended to the death by arrogant “evangelists”.
Wood had the intellectual ability to conduct an experiment and provide a scientific analysis – all the “experts” of today can do is shoot their mouth off without one iota of evidence !
http://voices.yahoo.com/before-start-believing-climate-change-is-2445767.html
This guy lists evidence for global warming and then concludes that it’s not evidence.
This list proves nothing except that there is extreme variability in weather. Just because rivers have not frozen in Oregon since 1924 does not mean it can’t happen again.
HA!
I have a few questions. Do you have a link for the 2002 data? If not, does the 2002 data stop at 1882 or go all the way up to 2002? If so, why didn’t you just make a graph using one set of data instead of three (GISS, NAS and RSS)? You could have compiled a graph showing all the data from 1882 until 2002 and then use more recent data to finish it up until today. My last question is why doesn’t your graph look like the one found on the GISS website, which is presumably what yours would look like if you used their data alone?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418334main_hemi-temp-full.jpg
The point is that the post 1880 GISS data has been tampered with.
I don’t see how this shows that. You are using GISS data from 2002 but only using the part from 1866 to 1882. Next you use NAS data from 1882 to 1970 then you use RSS data from 1979 to present. As you know, different data sets don’t always match up perfectly. The trends may be similar but this seems like you’re mixing your apples with oranges. You’d need to show the data before it was tampered with from GSS and compare it to now if that is indeed the point.
Plus, that is not what the point seems to be based on your post, which is that the northern hemisphere hasn’t warmed since 1866. This has been going all over the web and this is the source everyone is citing. But even your graph shows at least a .4 degree increase (the 1886 average appears to be around zero). Also, if you use GISS data only from 1866 to 1882 and the data for the past decade based on the GISS website, it would seem that the northern hemisphere has gained almost .8 of a degree. Why switch to RSS data when you started with GISS data?
It doesn’t show it. It is a follow up to about 500 other posts I have made addressing that topic.
Ah I see. So you are not actually trying to show that the northern hemisphere hasn’t warmed. The blogosphere just picked up on that headline without understanding the context behind it?
I see that you aren’t interested in doing reading or research before shooting your mouth off.
Am I shooting my mouth off? All I’m doing is asking sincere questions. As to research, I spent a few hours today trying to get to the bottom of this claim that the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1866 that I’ve been seeing on the blogosphere/news that link to this post as the main source. This “research” led me to ask the questions above.
Just to be clear, you are not actually making the claim that the Earth hasn’t warmed since 1866 correct? This is merely an illustration of previous posts that show the GISS has fudged their numbers and it seems the rest of the blog world/news sources have also not done their research to understand this context?
Its a sincere question.
I have addressed GISS data tampering in thousands of blog posts.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Looks interesting. I’ll have to check that out. But just to be clear, you’re not trying to show with this blog post that the northern hemisphere hasn’t warmed since 1866 correct?
The point he is making is that he suspects that there has been data tampering going on (in order to fit the data to the theory). That’s why mixed data sets are being used here. Steve believes he is showing data sets that prior to data tampering. You are of course free to agree or disagree with that conjecture.