Hansen/NASA created US warming?

During my investigation into the origins of the global warming...idea....I bumped into a little tidbit.

In 1999 Hansen apparently was quite happy to show graphs of the US temperatures showing the cooling after WWII.

But in 2000, NASA/Hansen, for what I assume is a perfectly rationalized reason, changed the US temperature history. Now, call me crazy, but never in my scientific career did I EVER, or would EVER have been encouraged, allowed, ordered or decided on my own to go back, AND CHANGE HISTORY.



Do we have the "official" reason for why altering historical data series is acceptable within the land of climate science? While I can believe that the academic/scientific world of the government can be more than just a little insular, and perhaps they never would have lowered themselves to ask a review body as I have had to on many occasions (for a written approval for changes in best practices of some sort), even insular academics would have at least tried to explain why it was reasonable to alter fundamental data.

 

All you need to know us that these changes are the based on the best science authored by the very people whos careers amd livelihoods are dependent on funding for AGW research.

In other words is the data doesn't agree with the theory tge data has to be wrong because they cant feed their families if their department gets closed.

 

That part of the story I am familiar with. But I was also interested in the "official" reason. VERY interested in the "official" reason because in the science world I come from, such antics would get you fired. And I wondering how such a thing is justified in others allegedly doing "science".

Suspicion in general is warranted by the very nature of the "science is settled" claim, itself a giveaway that whomever said it know nothing about the nature of science/

Sure, classic government stuff as well, all those reports handed out to Congress at the cost of $$$ and they won't go away because it would close down someone's brothers cousin and the department he works for, putting paper clips on the reports as they are editing or something. Saw that one on the evening news, it was a riot.

 

In the mind of the denier, raw data is flawless: a perfect record incapable of error. Therefore any adjustment to raw data, no matter how innocent or obvious, must necessarily be wrong, incorrect, and corrupt, and anyone who engages in that work is not a scientist doing his job, but is instead a corrupt charlatan.

I think you posted this thread in the wrong category. It should have been put in "Conspiracy Theories".

 

Raw data is not flawless at all. However, the signal you purport to show must damn well be significantly larger than your adjustment. It is okay to say we just don't know.

 

And on top of it, these were the changes to the data the deniers demanded!!! They demanded that the poorly sited ground stations and data be removed and then they complained that the data was changed and ground stations were removed.

 

In the mind of a scientist, the world is not deterministic, and neither is data. But altering it becomes an extremely touchy subject, and once a scientist decides to interpolate here, extrapolate there, write a new method of adding up the same numbers coming to a different conclusion, oh boy, now you have some MAJOR SPLAININ to do.

On the assumption that these climate change folks go through at least some procedure when they decide to change historical histories, particularly when those histories change substantially to verify a preconceived notion, an INTELLECTUAL PROCTOLOGY EXAM is an understatement about what SHOULD happen next.

I want to know about that exam, because sure as HELL I know better than to take someones word for it just because one afternoon they decided it was a good idea.

I didn't say that. But when you can see how the scientists involved at the origins of this debate were already preparing for plausible explanations, how they could maneuver public and political opinion to their advantage, the steps they were discussing to CREATE the effect they wanted, then damn straight I want to know why they decided to take data and change it to create support for a position they were already on the record as believing in.

I think you are unfamiliar with the origins of a gang that discussed how to corrupt science to their own ends.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is. Or to hang such a probability density function around it to capture the same idea.

 

Can you please provide a reference where Hansen said his new construction of temperature was based solely on removing ground stations and nothing else? No new interpolations, extrapolations, no new algorithm to "assemble" the new data set, etc etc. A review by a statistical society or another (that's what I usually am forced to do), maybe the quality control group inside NASA itself? The more independent the better of course.

 

How about data manipulation from will sited an unchanged ground stations? One of the reasons the Australian BOM is under fire. The BOM says Rutherglen site shifted, former workers there say “No”. One of the better sites is 'homogenized' to reflect warming.



Isn't it interesting that all of the manipulations change cooling to warming?

 

I believe Hanson also predicted Manhattan would be under 12 feet of seawater by now.......

All you need to know us that these changes are the based on the best science authored by the very people whos careers am livelihoods are dependent on funding for AGW research.
Absolutely positively you have hit the nail on the head Wendigo

Remember when Penn State conducted a "closed" investigation into Mann and his funny business with data. Thier conclusion was he had done nothing wrong....
Like they would say "oh yes people it is all a fraud, here we are giving back all those millions in grant money....."
Of course we all know Penn State wouldn't cover up important truths.......

 

From the BOM:

Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground.
The bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

 

Retired scientist Bill Johnston, who has worked at Rutherglen, said a temporary thermometer had been put on higher ground near the office of the farm but it never provided temperatures to the bureau.

“Some locals thought the (*)official data was not particularly inviting for winter tourists,’’ Dr Johnston said.

“So they established a second Stevenson screen near the office on a watered lawn, near fruit trees, so it was pretty useless as a weather station.”

 

Now all you need to do is explain how Hansen and NASA altered temperature data from HadCRUT, UAH and RSS.

 

It doesn't matter. Once moved or surroundings altered, the data is no longer valid as contiguous data, and assumed corrections are just assumed.

 

It was processed with EXTRA special knowledge? It was interpolated between gaps? Homogenized to make sure the trend was "trending" the way it was supposed to? Set equal to "expert knowledge", as long as the experts all agreed that the trend should be up, up and away?

I mean really, there is a real danger when doing this kind of stuff, without transparency, without a pretty thorough review of the process by qualified outsiders, acceptance of the procedures, standardization, understanding of the uncertainties involved, I mean this is pretty much standard stuff. How this particular gang was able to make their particular branch of science into a wild west is beyond me.

 

... why?

 

Which is exactly why scientists write peer-reviewed papers, to explain precisely that. It's not the fault of scientists if the denizens of Denierstan refuse to read real science, preferring instead the conspiracy theory rant.

No, I don't think you really want to know about that at all. Because that requires, you know, reading. And even worse, thinking. It's not your strong suit.

Thanks for proving my point. This thread should certainly be moved to the CT section.

 

Do you understand the concept of modeling "noise"?

 

There is far more to professional science than writing peer reviewed papers. And neither those procedures, nor peer reviewed papers, have anything to do with conspiracies.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the difference between the stated facts of a matter, and a conspiracy?

 

The Australian BOM has documentary proof that the site at Rutherglen moved sometime between 1958 and 1975. But since you live in Denierstan, I'm sure mere evidence won't sway your opinion.

 

Sure. Do you understand that some adjustments are noiseless? And do you understand that some adjustments are made for the specific purpose of reducing noise?

The question stands.

 

If that's what you really believe, then why did you start this thread with the implication that the peer-reviewed changes to US temperatures made by GISS in 1998 were part of some grand conspiracy? Pick a position and stick to it, Peak: were those peer-reviewed 1998 changes legitimate science, or were they part of a plot?

 

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, like I said, don't listen to the people from the Station, believe the bureaucrat instead. Typical denier.

 

Thank you for proving you do not understand modeling noise. In data, systems, or anything else apparently.

This is a thread dedicated to trying to understand why some climate scientists and/or their organizations have changed historical data. Interestingly, in a direction they had previously been claiming it SHOULD go, rather than the way it DID go.

The question is why some scientists, such as myself, would have been fired for doing this without an extensive internal investigation, outside professional review, and such transparency, explanation and documented approval leaving no doubt as to why, or which, historical data were being altered.

Do you have any information as to where this type of extensive documentation might be for what Hansen and NASA did, effectively creating warming where there had been none registered before?

 

I implied no such thing. I simply compared the consequences of changing historical data within one branch of scientific research to that of another, and asked why I can't find the level of documentation explaining these changes with the same level of professionalism and transparency that is required of others.

Are you aware of the third party verification of the systems, methods, procedures used to make changes to the historical data? A writeup by the National Academy of Sciences approving a procedure perhaps? American Statistical Association? National Society of Professional Engineers? American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing? Someone independent of the issue with at least the scientific credibility to examine the hows and whys of the changes? A document explaining each of the changes individually? Anything?