the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

1934 – 1998 Gissmatic

Posted by Jeff Id on January 15, 2010

Lucy Skywalker put an interesting link in the thread of the new just released GISS emails.  While not as dramatic, there are interesting details in these as well.  The GISS adjustments are highly questionable on their basis in my opinion but not necessarily wrong out of hand.  They do go in the direction we have come to expect.  In this case though, you can see the dramatic progress toward shifting the 1934 temperatures downward.  When you consider that 1934 was at one time .5 C higher than 1998 and over the years was repressed until they were equal – this is for the US only 2% of global area.  Currently the global trend over that time is about 0.5C.

Here is a plot of this climategissgate email from the Virtual Philosopy club linked above.

Why are all the adjustments in the same direction every time we bother to look.  I really have a hard time believing all of this was done with intent but my god the constant battering on my senses.  What are we supposed to think.

26 Responses to “1934 – 1998 Gissmatic”

  1. Harold Vance said

    I’m sure that all the people living in the U.S. in 1934 will be glad to hear about this change. Maybe they can turn off their attic fans now and get with green energy program and help make the present cooler. I do feel sorry for the ice and ice cream vendors, though. Their sales will need to be adjusted downward.

  2. mrpkw said

    Every time I see Hansen’s work, all I can think is…
    “if you can’t make the present warmer, make the past colder”

  3. Harold Vance said

    You really enjoy this link, Jeff:

    The temp (unadjusted of course!) hit 110 degrees on July 25, 1934. Holy cow!

    GISS to the rescue!

  4. Harold Vance said

    This is also a must read. The temps hit 110 degrees (unadjusted by GISS!) in Nebraska, too:

    “The humidity got so low, furniture and wood in houses cracked. We couldn’t stand it in the house at night. We went out by the windmill, sat on the ground and drank cool water.”

    “A gigantic cloud of dust 1,500 miles long, 900
    miles across and two miles high buffeted and smothered almost one-third of the nation today. [May 11]”

    GISS to the rescue!

  5. Harold Vance said

    Do those weather conditions sound anything like what was experienced in any year during the decade from 2000 to 2009?

    Um, I don’t think so.

  6. […] “It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60%  [0.5 C] higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).”  “US version of Climategate coming?“  h/t The Air Vent […]

  7. […] Gissemailamatic, […]

  8. Antonio San said

    “The GISS adjustments are highly questionable on their basis in my opinion but not necessarily wrong out of hand.”

    Of course and I think you do not need to make out of hand, crazy, wrong adjustments to generate a 0.7c over a century… and that’s the crux of the matter.

  9. stansvonhorch said

    posted this at CA and WUWT, might as well complete the trifecta. work logs, graphs, and data from a protected folder at GISS (got the login from the new FOIA docs)

    the folder is down today…

    sample log:

    “Target CO2″ Paper
    Proof received, awful quality, I checked fig caps & ref’s 08′10′06
    Evelyn faxed, FedExed & e-mailed Jim’s new version 08′10′07
    Figure 6+S13 for press release PDF Target/S13&DearPM 08′10′09 08′10′14
    Schmunk uploaded on arXiv Main, Appendix 08′10′15 08′10′15
    Larry/Evelyn paid $800 for publication by fax 08′10′21 08′10′21
    2nd Proof, Jim sent e-mail and faxed re figure locations 08′10′27 08′10′27
    Jim sent pre-press release and Q&A to reporters in list 08′10′27 08′10′27
    3rd Proof, OK to Saima 08′10′29 08′10′29
    Published on-line, with chopped up words. Jim sent e-mail. 08′10′31 08′10′31

  10. John P from MN said

    Something smells in Denmark, to coin a phrase. We all know the northern hemisphere has been the coldest in many years during early January. The stories abound everywhere (I in S. MN. on the Iowa border have yet to see the temperature above freezing this year and spent most of the first two weeks below zero F). Now as us skeptics (realist) are gloating. It just so happens the people behind the curtain, come out and say we just had the warmest January day in recorded history during the frigid plunge? ( Some Global Temperature recording site UAH) Well excuse me, I wasn’t born yesterday. I would like to add, I found this site I typed in my local rural city and asked for raw data graphed since 1886 (real temp data I assume). Anyhow here is the result Amazingly their is not any Hockey Stick My city is near as cold in 2009 as it has ever been in recorded History! No wonder I do not buy into the GW frenzy. I am a Farmer and would wish it would warm up so I could consistently raise better crops, extend my growing season and have less fear of severe crop loss from sudden freezes in the spring and fall…and it I really do have Global Cooling here in Rural MN………..John
    PS Why don’t some of you guys put in some pertinent cities and see if You also have Global cooling or at least zero warming over the last last 120 years Like I have…….John………

  11. Gary P said

    “I really have a hard time believing all of this was done with intent”

    As an analogy, I think you are arguing the difference between 1st degree murder and reckless homicide.

    The population and economies of the world have been increasing monotonically over the entire temperature record. The urban heat island effect is well known and has unquestionably caused an increase in recorded temperatures and there must be an upward trend in the bias of the recorded temperatures. Therefore any realist correction to the temperatures must show a lower upward trend than the raw data when average of all the recording sites is considered.

    The team has never openly done this simple sanity check on the raw data vs. their homogenized data. Now they intentionally hide the raw data so no one else can do this simple test. They are trying to hide the evidence. At a minimum they are are guilty of absolute reckless disregard for the truth. Given the funding they have been entrusted with, and the intentional harm to the fossil fuel industries, (death trains ring a bell?) I can barely tolerate it when someone starts to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  12. SteveCase said

    On this page:

    You will find this graph:

    Is there any doubt?

  13. Peter of Sydney said

    Amazing. Doe sit really matter if the climate warmed, cooled or pretty much has not changed temperature over the past 100 years? Given it’s well withing the normal operational parameters of natural variability that we have determined over the previous 100’s and 1000’s of years there’s nothing to be alarmed about. The question then is what is going to happen over the next 100 years. Anyone who says they know the answer to that question is a liar. Pure and simple.

  14. You should continue the graph out to 2010. NASA are now showing 1934 at 1.26 and 1998 at 1.29.

    So, since 1999, 1934 has been reduced by 0.2 degree, and 1998 increased by 0.37 degree, so a relative change of 0.57 degree.

    What’s more, 2006 is sitting at 1.29 as well, so now they can claim two recent years hotter than 1934. Indeed, they can torture the numbers until they confess exactly what they want.

  15. mrpkw said

    The Gissmanitron?

  16. MrCannuckistan said

    IMHO, James Hansen is the Homer Simpson of climate science.


  17. Bruce said

    Does anyone stop to think that this is all about a warming of 1 degree over the last 100 years? I just went through a review of the 9 pages of references, a total of 537 papers, on Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report AR4. I did not read all of the papers. From the titles, I selected those that appeared to address attribution. By searching the web by the title, I was able to find the abstract on nearly all of the papers and the complete PDF on most of the papers. I COULD NOT FIND ANY PAPERS DESCRIBING ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW). To put it in context, it reminded me of a debate among theologians about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The evidence behind AGW amounts the Argument from Ignorance, the models using (their definition of) natural causes alone cannot replicate the observed global warming, therefore, it must be caused by humans. The models have been calibrated to predict past climate, but what good is that? The UK Met office has been pilloried for their predictions of a mild winter and none of the many climate models predicted a decade without any warming. Now the AGW alarmists have finally discovered NATURAL VARIABILITY!

  18. Viv Evans said

    The plot of the ‘adjustments’ of the climategissgate emails reminds me very much of how the bad sisters of Cinderella made their shoes fit to catch the prince …

  19. greg2213 said

    Bruce (17)

    JoNova frequently points out that there is ZERO empirical evidence for CO2 being the cause of warming. here’s the link

    Here’s another way to look at it. Think of that Monopoly game card, “Bank error in your favor, collect $$”

    Over time the bank makes 20 errors. If they are all in our favor then we will praise the bank’s honesty (though we might quietly question the accuracy of their accounting.)

    If the 20 errors are against us we’ll let everyone know, in a very disgruntled voice, just how awful the bank is.

    Unlike the peoples in charge of the temperature records the bank will actually be able to give us a good reason for the correction (whether or not we like it is another issue.)

    Now, if the bank tossed all their accounting records (as did CRU with the raw data) does anyone think that they would be congratulated by the media and government?

  20. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    it is there for all to see!!!!!!!

    it is not hiding it is right there for all to see…how..what…the

  21. stumpy said

    Having looked at temp data and the work of others one of the issues for me is using a 1979 – 2000 or 1951 – 1980 base period to convert temperature to temperature anomalie. Using these peroids the more modern period of station records will tend to agree better with the earlier temps having more variation. Homogenisation is then used to “match” them up i.e. to remove non-climatic trends. But, if you use only long station records and say a 1900-1930 base period, then homogenisation the urban stations that been warming faster with the rural stations you get a very different answer. But both can arguably be correct methods. Fact is we will never a get a true picture, and everything should be taken with a pinch of salt. A valid method may give the right or the wrong answer! Was the 1930’s warmer? I suspect it was similar to current temps, if not a little warmer and I suspect that goes for a lot of the globe.

  22. […] 1934 – 1998 Gissmatic Lucy Skywalker put an interesting link in the thread of the new just released GISS emails.  While not as dramatic, […] […]

  23. […] 1934 – 1998 Gissmatic […]

  24. […] The Air Vent has more detail on this, noting that ‘34 has been as much as .5 C higher than ‘98. Doesn’t sound like much until you realize that the entire trend from 1895 to now is about 0.6C […]

  25. […] Air Vent: 1934 – 1998 Gissmatic […]

  26. […] Gissemailamatic, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: