Jim Hansen the Lysenko of our time

[glc]

Well believe me....-8.5F is FAR from neutral.

I've had a look at this. Unfortunately I only have the GISS record for Bismarck so I can't compare previous years directly. If I use the 1901-2000 period as the 'normal' baseline then March 2011 is about 6 deg F below normal. However, if I use the 1981-2010 period as the 'normal' baseline period then March 2011 is 8.52 deg F below normal.

It might be that this is just a coincidence but I think there is a possibility that the NCDC data is using the most recent 30 year period as the baseline period. Remember UAH switched to 1981-2010 basline in December. At the time Roy Spencer wrote the following

As an alert, we will be generating anomalies when the December data have been processed to be based on the 30-year mean annual cycle of 1981-2010 to match the 30-year normal time frame of many meteorology anomalies. This will replace the older reference annual cycle of 20-years (1979-1998).

Do the "many meteorology anomalies" include NCDC?

Joe Bastardi nailed it.

I doubt it.

[glc]

MYSTERY SOLVED

In my previous post I suggested NCDC were using the 1981-2010 base period to calculate temperature anomalies. I now believe that this is definitely the case. This is from a NCDC newsletter (see www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/newsletterV2Is4.pdf )

NCDC to Investigate Optimal Climate Normals: NCDC is already preparing for the rollout of the 1981-2010 climate normals, which should be available to the public sometime in 2011. A climate normal is defined as the 30-year average value of a particular quantity – such as daily high temperature. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) mandates that normals be computed every 30 years – the last 30-year update covered the 1961-1990 period. Nevertheless, many countries, including the United States, compute official climate normals every ten years. In a way, this is our own version of a census. NCDC produces a suite of normals products; for more information on our 1971-2000 normals products and previous decadal updates, please visit our US Normals website

This information implies that GISS and NCDC are totally consistent. The 1981-2010 GISS March 'anomaly' for Bismarck is exactly the same as the NCDC March 'anomaly' in the link provided by Sigurdur.

This is a GISS anomaly map using the 1981-2010 baseline period and a 250 Km smoothing radius. Notice the North-East US region. I wouldn't mid betting that looks exactly the same as the NCDC anomaly map

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2011&year2=2011&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=250&pol=reg

Magellan

I managed to get this information in about half an hour. Bastardi, an alleged meteorologist, is still ranting about the GISS cold period. By all means take notice of posts from the likes of Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke and even Richard Lindzen but take anything Bastardi utters with a pinch of salt.

[magellan]

Apr 27, 2011 9:31:29 GMT glc said:

MYSTERY SOLVED

In my previous post I suggested NCDC were using the 1981-2010 base period to calculate temperature anomalies. I now believe that this is definitely the case. This is from a NCDC newsletter (see www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/newsletterV2Is4.pdf )

NCDC to Investigate Optimal Climate Normals: NCDC is already preparing for the rollout of the 1981-2010 climate normals, which should be available to the public sometime in 2011. A climate normal is defined as the 30-year average value of a particular quantity – such as daily high temperature. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) mandates that normals be computed every 30 years – the last 30-year update covered the 1961-1990 period. Nevertheless, many countries, including the United States, compute official climate normals every ten years. In a way, this is our own version of a census. NCDC produces a suite of normals products; for more information on our 1971-2000 normals products and previous decadal updates, please visit our US Normals website

This information implies that GISS and NCDC are totally consistent. The 1981-2010 GISS March 'anomaly' for Bismarck is exactly the same as the NCDC March 'anomaly' in the link provided by Sigurdur.

This is a GISS anomaly map using the 1981-2010 baseline period and a 250 Km smoothing radius. Notice the North-East US region. I wouldn't mid betting that looks exactly the same as the NCDC anomaly map

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=03&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2011&year2=2011&base1=1981&base2=2010&radius=250&pol=reg

Magellan

I managed to get this information in about half an hour. Bastardi, an alleged meteorologist, is still ranting about the GISS cold period. By all means take notice of posts from the likes of Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke and even Richard Lindzen but take anything Bastardi utters with a pinch of salt.

Thisis a GISS anomaly map using the 1981-2010 baseline period

Therein lies your shell game.

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

[richard]

Apr 27, 2011 18:36:47 GMT magellan said:

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

Bastardi is implying that the most preeminent climate scientist in the world is a lying cheat. Bastardi, as usual, is just plain wrong.

[hunterson]

Apr 27, 2011 18:54:31 GMT richard said:

Apr 27, 2011 18:36:47 GMT magellan said:

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

Bastardi is implying that the most preeminent climate scientist in the world is a lying cheat. Bastardi, as usual, is just plain wrong.

richard, Bastradi is not implying that the most pre-eminent climate scientist in the world is a lying cheat.
Bastardi is pointing out that Hansen, a lying sack of offal, is alying cheat. There is a huge difference.
And, btw, calling Bastardi mostly wrong only makes you look like a truly ignorant person.
Are you truly ignorant, richard?

[glc]

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

Like I said - ignore Bastardi. Consider instead the following:

The trends since 1981 for HadCrut and GISS are as follows

HadCrut 0.164 deg per decade
GISS 0.173 deg per decade

Now then - if GISS had adjusted the 1951-80 period downwards to any significant degree the GISS trend since 1951 would be greater than the HadCrut trend by more than the 0.009 deg since 1981.

The trends since 1951 for HadCrut and GISS are

HadCrut 0.117 deg per decade
GISS 0.111 deg per decade

There's very little in it but this implies that HadCrut is relatively cooler than GISS during the 1951-80 period. So tell us again what Bastardi is saying? Is he saying HadCriut is also adjusting downwards? What about the radiosonde record - is that being adjusted as well.

You don't read this kind of nonsense from Spencer or Lindzen. Bastardi is appealing to the more extreme populist sceptical views. He knows very little about the broader issues of climate science and has certainly provided no proof for his accusations.

[glc]

richard, Bastradi is not implying that the most pre-eminent climate scientist in the world is a lying cheat.
Bastardi is pointing out that Hansen, a lying sack of offal, is alying cheat. There is a huge difference.
And, btw, calling Bastardi mostly wrong only makes you look like a truly ignorant person.
Are you truly ignorant, richard?

You'll no doubt have the evidence, then. Let's see the proof that Hansen has adjusted the GISS record down significantly - or significantly enough to make the present day appear much warmer relative to the past.

[icefisher]

Apr 27, 2011 19:28:02 GMT glc said:

You'll no doubt have the evidence, then. Let's see the proof that Hansen has adjusted the GISS record down significantly - or significantly enough to make the present day appear much warmer relative to the past.

GLC you are railing about something that is well known to be true. Both Hadcrut and GISS have both adjusted the older data downwards. . . .somewhat at least independently.

For years the blink comparisons and various studies that have snapshotted the temperature records that we have seen on the web comparing old reported temperatures to current ones have done that.

The question isn't "if" they have done it the question is "why".

The other issue is Hansen's arctic extrapolations. When asked for support for the technique vague responses are given that such extrapolations are supported by previous validation studies.

This is the excuse more often than not that auditors get when they find profits overstated. But a validation study of Phoenix to Tucson and up to Smoldering Creek, Utah isn't a validation study for the Arctic.

There are thermometers in the arctic to do a proper validation study and we know why it hasn't been done too. Actually I can just about guarantee you it has been done. The only reason it isn't available is it didn't support what it had been hoped to support so it was trashed on the basis the observations (thermometers) were wrong.

Don't ask me to prove that because I can't. But as an old auditor I know its the case even if the validation study was done on the back of a napkin because there is too much motivation to have done one, too much information available to not do one, leaving only the results as the determination whether it saw the light of day.

So why don't the skeptics do one? Thats simple GLC. Hansen is such a buffoon it is better off not touching him. Skeptics should come up with a contribution fund to keep him where he is. The only people who care are folks that care about the government wasting money. Hansen is this old recycled hippy too ignorant to see he has become exactly what motivated him to join the counterculture in the first place. . . .he is the best advertising the skeptic community has.

And we know how many folks that adds up to when you see how robustly earmarks and waste is being attacked in Washington. In that arena Hansen is small potatoes.

[socold]

Bastardi, the Lysenko of our time

[socold]

"So why don't the skeptics do one? Thats simple GLC. Hansen is such a buffoon it is better off not touching him. Skeptics should come up with a contribution fund to keep him where he is."

Haha that's priceless. Has anyone ever not seen a skeptic not ranting and raving that Hansen should be removed, etc etc? Well here we have recommendations that Hansen stay in place! Whatever flies as the argument du jour I guess

[icefisher]

Apr 27, 2011 20:26:30 GMT socold said:

"So why don't the skeptics do one? Thats simple GLC. Hansen is such a buffoon it is better off not touching him. Skeptics should come up with a contribution fund to keep him where he is."

Haha that's priceless. Has anyone ever not seen a skeptic not ranting and raving that Hansen should be removed, etc etc? Well here we have recommendations that Hansen stay in place! Whatever flies as the argument du jour I guess

I didn't say they should stop mocking him. I suggested they create a fund to keep him on the pillar. . . .or pillory if you will.

If they remove him who are the skeptics going to mock? Nobody can step into Hansen's shoes.

[magellan]

Apr 27, 2011 19:20:13 GMT glc said:

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

Like I said - ignore Bastardi. Consider instead the following:

The trends since 1981 for HadCrut and GISS are as follows

HadCrut 0.164 deg per decade
GISS 0.173 deg per decade

Now then - if GISS had adjusted the 1951-80 period downwards to any significant degree the GISS trend since 1951 would be greater than the HadCrut trend by more than the 0.009 deg since 1981.

The trends since 1951 for HadCrut and GISS are

HadCrut 0.117 deg per decade
GISS 0.111 deg per decade

There's very little in it but this implies that HadCrut is relatively cooler than GISS during the 1951-80 period. So tell us again what Bastardi is saying? Is he saying HadCriut is also adjusting downwards? What about the radiosonde record - is that being adjusted as well.

You don't read this kind of nonsense from Spencer or Lindzen. Bastardi is appealing to the more extreme populist sceptical views. He knows very little about the broader issues of climate science and has certainly provided no proof for his accusations.

There you go again playing the linear regression trend games.

I can create a graph with identical trends with one set of data having a higher overall temperature than the other. For some reason you can't understand this and continue these ignoramus trend "analyses".

You aren't going to win this glc. CA is chocked full of GISS antics, just to name one source. I hope you've got your ducks in a row, it's going to be a rough ride

You're right though. Joe Bastardi was wrong; it's worse than we thought.

climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nasa_us_adjustments.png [/img]

P.S. There is absolutely no question Hansen has adjusted the past down and the present up. Why GISS defenders pretend he doesn't do this is puzzling. Also, it is apparent how 1200km smoothing perverts the temperature maps.

[glc]

Apr 27, 2011 22:10:26 GMT magellan said:

Apr 27, 2011 19:20:13 GMT glc said:

Hansen is comparing his data to 1951 to 1980 data, pre satellite, COLD PDO 90% OF THE TIME, Cold AMO 80% . He has free reign to adjust pre satellite temps DOWN and can not monkey with the 30 year record from 1980 on. Simple solution, keep adjusting down the colder period. No sweat.- Joe Bastardi

Like I said - ignore Bastardi. Consider instead the following:

The trends since 1981 for HadCrut and GISS are as follows

HadCrut 0.164 deg per decade
GISS 0.173 deg per decade

Now then - if GISS had adjusted the 1951-80 period downwards to any significant degree the GISS trend since 1951 would be greater than the HadCrut trend by more than the 0.009 deg since 1981.

The trends since 1951 for HadCrut and GISS are

HadCrut 0.117 deg per decade
GISS 0.111 deg per decade

There's very little in it but this implies that HadCrut is relatively cooler than GISS during the 1951-80 period. So tell us again what Bastardi is saying? Is he saying HadCriut is also adjusting downwards? What about the radiosonde record - is that being adjusted as well.

You don't read this kind of nonsense from Spencer or Lindzen. Bastardi is appealing to the more extreme populist sceptical views. He knows very little about the broader issues of climate science and has certainly provided no proof for his accusations.

There you go again playing the linear regression trend games.

I can create a graph with identical trends with one set of data having a higher overall temperature than the other. For some reason you can't understand this and continue these ignoramus trend "analyses".

You aren't going to win this glc. CA is chocked full of GISS antics, just to name one source. I hope you've got your ducks in a row, it's going to be a rough ride

You're right though. Joe Bastardi was wrong; it's worse than we thought.

climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nasa_us_adjustments.png

[/img]

P.S. There is absolutely no question Hansen has adjusted the past down and the present up. Why GISS defenders pretend he doesn't do this is puzzling. Also, it is apparent how 1200km smoothing perverts the temperature maps.

[/quote]


You aren't going to win this glc. CA is chocked full of GISS antics, just to name one source.

As usual, Magellan, you've moved the argument and probably ithout realising it have produced a load of irrelevant crap.

First of all, let's just make it clear that all data sets have been subject to adjustments. That's nothing new. Given how easy it was to expose the Goddard/Bastardi nonsense. I'm quite sure that we could a perfectly good explanation can be found if we could be bothered to look.

However even if the adjustments were done in some underhand way they do not affect the valididity of my argument.
Let's just remind you of what you and Bastardi were saying:

The GISS anoamly map shows warmer than the NCDC anomaly map because GISS has adjusted the 1951-1980 base period downwards. I say this is rubbish .... and do you know what, Magellan, your graphs says it is rubbish as well.

LOOK AT THE GRAPHS. The 1951-80 period is virtually unchanged. If you want to be hypercritical then you could argue that the early part of the period has been adjusted UP (warmer) by a couple of hundredths of a degree while the later part was adjusted DOWN (colder) - but the overall net effect on the 1951-80 mean temperatures must very close to ZERO.

There is no way this could affect the anomaly maps.

We've already checked the most recent NCDC and GISS temperature data for the US states in question, and found that to be in total agreement. Any other issue regarding the adjustments is therefore irrelevant.

In summary, I have now shown that Goddard and Bastardi (and you) are wrong on these main points:

1. NCDC does not use the 1901-2000 base period for state meteorological data - it uses the most recent 30 year period, i.e. 1981-2010. The meteorologist appeared not to know this.
2. The 1951-80 period has not been adjusted to anything like the amount required to have an impact on the appearance of anomaly maps.
3. GISS and NCDC data are in total agreement.

Also, it is apparent how 1200km smoothing perverts the temperature maps.

Then select the 250Km smoothing radius.

[hunterson]

Apr 27, 2011 20:24:37 GMT socold said:

Bastardi, the Lysenko of our time

Your historical ignorance is nearly as great as your lack of original thinking.
But hey, if I was losing like you, cornered and too cowardly to admit it, I would toss a bomb and hope to hijack the thread also.

[richard]

Apr 27, 2011 19:58:06 GMT icefisher said:

The other issue is Hansen's arctic extrapolations. When asked for support for the technique vague responses are given that such extrapolations are supported by previous validation studies.

This is the excuse more often than not that auditors get when they find profits overstated. But a validation study of Phoenix to Tucson and up to Smoldering Creek, Utah isn't a validation study for the Arctic.

<snip conspiracy theory>

A referral to previous validation studies is a fine answer. You now have to read and attack the previous studies.