Creating Global Warming in the Laboratory

The topic of creating global warming at the computer workstation with poorly-justified "corrections" of past temperature records is one with which my readers should be familiar.  Some older posts on the topic are here and here and here.

The Register updates this topic use March, 2008 temperature measurements from various sources.  They show that in addition to the USHCN adjustments we discussed here, the GISS overlays another 0.15C warming through further adjustments. 


Nearly every measurement bias that you can imagine that changes over time tends to be an upward / warming bias, particularly the urban heat island effect my son and I measured here.  So what is all this cooling bias that these guys are correcting for?  Or are they just changing the numbers by fiat to match their faulty models and expensive policy goals?

Update:  Another great example is here, with faulty computer assumptions on ocean temperature recording substantially screwing up the temperature history record.

  • Scientist

    Rather than pleading to be told what’s going on, you could read the papers which describe the methodology.

  • Scientist

    Oh yes, and do learn the difference between the United States and the world. It really is quite significant, and important to get right if you want not to make a fool of yourself in global warming-related discussions.

  • Translation:

    You have no point by point rebuttal against the posted article.Just the usual prevaricating B.S. we have come to expect from you.

    It appears that you are not at all wondering why NASA is so different from Hadley Centre,MSU,CRU,RSS and more.When it comes to temperature data.

  • Scientist

    In what way is NASA different, when it comes to temperature data?

  • bbeeman


    I, too, would like an explanation from GISS as to why they feel compelled to diddle the data. Apparently, you don’t have a problem with 1) GISS using surface temp measurements when satellite data is more accurate and reliable, and 2) accepting the adjustments done that are outside of the UHI, TOB, etc. range of problems. The surface temp data are obviously unreliable. Else, why continuing adjusting fifty year-old data over, and over again?

    I think it is reasonable to ask for explanations that are not on the GISS web site. If you want to reference some papers I would be glad to read them, and I am sure the author of this post would be interested in such a response instead of condescending comments.

  • “In what way is NASA different, when it comes to temperature data?”


    You are obviously not up to date.You should know by now what that difference is.

    They are much warmer than all the other temperature data centers.

    It is well discussed at Climate Audit.

    Maybe you should go there and catch up on what games James Hansen is up to with past temperature data.He seems to have a growing fetish at changing past climatic temperature data.

  • Scientist

    bbeeman – no, I do not have a problem with global temperature anomalies being measured from multiple independent datasets. Why is satellite data necessarily more accurate and reliable? All the papers describing the GISS methodology are on the GISS website.

    sunsettommy – They are much warmer than all the other temperature data, they aren’t.

  • Stevo

    Oh, dear, not this again.

    The graph you link to is not the GISS temperature anomaly series, but is the product of ‘adjustment’ by the blogger Tamino, as you well know. You’ll need to give complete details of how this adjustment was done and why/how it’s justified before we can draw any conclusions from it.

    And the algorithms implementing the GISS methodology make it perfectly clear why the results aren’t accurate or reliable.

  • Scientist

    It’s incredibly simple, as I explained before. How about you have a go? Here’s what you do, and why.

    GISS anomalies are measured relative to the 1951-80 mean. HadCRUT anomalies are measured relative to the 1961-90 mean. RSS and UAH are measured relative to the 1979-2000 mean. Comparing anomalies from the four datasets directly would be as stupid as measuring the height of one mountain from sea level, another mountain from the sea floor, and then trying to say something about their relative heights.

    So, to make valid comparisons, you need to compute the anomalies from all four datasets relative to a common reference period. This is very easy. Simply choose your period, compute the mean anomaly for each dataset during this period, then subtract this from the original data.

    Now, plot a graph showing all four datasets, now that they have been aligned to a common reference period. What do you see?

    From your suspicious tone of voice, it’s almost as if you didn’t realise the four datasets cannot simply be compared directly, without any rescaling.

    And the algorithms implementing the GISS methodology make it perfectly clear why the results aren’t accurate or reliable. – statements like these are entirely devoid of meaning or value.

  • Stevo

    What you get isn’t Tamino’s graph. That’s the problem. He hasn’t just added an offset, he’s done something else too. Problem is, we don’t know what – and neither do you.

  • Scientist

    No, there is nothing else. I can reproduce the graph exactly, by following the procedure I described. If you can’t, it can only be because you’re incompetent.

  • bbeeman


    You missed the point, which you seem to do with oher posts on this blog. It is well known that the satellite dats is consistent, highly reliable, and derived from first principles. Satellite data does not average sites hundreds or thousands of km apart like GISS’s faulty process. Are you even aware of the process? I would suggest that you read Hansen’s papers referenced on the GISS web site you alude to.

    Keep on drinking the koolaid. Ignorance is bliss, and you never noticed it when the factual world bypassed your understanding.

    Good luck, and keep that koolaid thing going.

  • Scientist

    Oh dear me. You obviously have no clue about how non-trivial it is to derive lower troposphere temperatures from satellites which have to look through the rest of the atmosphere to see the lower troposphere. You obviously haven’t heard of such things as diurnal drift. And you obviously haven’t grasped the fact that GISS’s faulty process and these consistent, highly reliable satellite measurements tell us exactly the same thing. Looks like you’re just another staggeringly ignorant and yet massively sure of yourself climate idiot.

  • bbeeman

    Scientist proclaimed:
    “GISS’s faulty process and these consistent, highly reliable satellite measurements tell us exactly the same thing.”

    No cigar, there!

    None of the so-called independent agencies products are exactly the same. That’s why there are different agencies, and the data are not independent. Two surface based products from many of the same instruments, and two satellite based products from the same instruments do not report the same, EXACT, conclusions. They are not independent and not exactly the same.

    There are problems with satellites, and also the GISS methods. Anyone but a fool would ignore the GISS recyced and diddled data and use entirely reliable current technologies.

    But you’re not just any fool. You drink the koolaid lemmings love.

    What grade do you teach, 7th or 8th?

  • Scientist

    entirely reliable current technologies – which are they then? Do you understand what this graph means?