7 ms·

In 28 August 1981, the mean surface temperature is 288K = 15 degree C: http://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hansen81a.pdf http://climate-dyna

In 28 August 1981, the mean surface temperature is 288K = 15 degree C: http://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hansen81a.pdf http://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/hanse... ---------- In 1988, it was claimed that the global avg temperature was 59 deg F = 15 degree C Multiple sources: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-w... https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19880705&id=kKMtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9HEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4970,774657&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19880705&id=... ---------- IPCC's First Assessment Report in 1990, table on page xxxvii of the report listed the "Observed Surface Temperature" of Earth as 15 degrees Celsius: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_introduction-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_... ---------- In Jan 12 1992, it's 15 degree C: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S2xGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7ugMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4134,2440761&dq=helene+wilson+59+fahrenheit+hansen&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S2xGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7ugM... ---------- ############## SOMETHING CHANGED IN 1997: "Global Temperature Down Slightly": https://books.google.ca/books?id=VyFpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=%22Global+Temperature+Down+Slightly%22&source=bl&ots=mLv2gwmG4l&sig=ACfU3U0qk-nM4FnLgI7jNAGbl9c0xQyiCg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjclpLCsbTlAhUJVN8KHV1sCsUQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Global%20Temperature%20Down%20Slightly%22&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=VyFpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA... ---------- December 14, 2002: They magically started using 14C as the long term average instead of 15C without any explanation: https://www.smh.com.au/world/global-warming-blamed-for-heat-20021214-gdfyre.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/global-warming-blamed-for-heat-... > This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world. The meteorological year runs from December to November. During that period, 2001 temperatures were 14.51C. The record remains with 1998, when global temperature rose to 14.67C - the highest since records were first compiled in the late 1800s. The warm temperatures of 2001 and 2002 are especially significant when they are considered in the light of El Nino weather patterns that alter global climate, Mr Hansen said. "The fact that 2002 is almost as warm as the unusual warmth of 1998 is confirmation that the underlying global warming trend is continuing," Mr Hansen said. ---------- August 25, 2011: > But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010). The difference in temperature is attributed to greenhouse gases that trap thermal radiation, warming Earth as depicted in figure 2.1. https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322216.html https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322216.html ########## Sometime between 1997 and 1998, they magically started claiming the avg to be 14 degree C instead of 15. 18 January 1998's "Vital Signs 1998: The Environmental Trends that are Shaping Our Future" magazine made this magical change with a small footnote: https://books.google.ca/books?id=EfZRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=In+earlier+versions+of+Vital+Signs,+Worldwatch+added+the+temperature+change+reported+by+the+Goddard+Institute+to+an+estimated+global+temperature+of+15+degrees+Celsius,+but+the+institute+has+since+informed+Worldwatch+that+a+better+base+number+would+be+14+degrees+Celsius.+James+Hansen,+Goddard+Institute+for+Space+Studies,+New+York,+email+to+author,+18+January+1998.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=2ZyDz-pRJg&sig=ACfU3U0Dwas7rcxUuEt3Ef03BGVN6FN8Rw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-4KHKoYrnAhVMCc0KHRkFBtsQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=In%20earlier%20versions%20of%20Vital%20Signs%2C%20Worldwatch%20added%20the%20temperature%20change%20reported%20by%20the%20Goddard%20Institute%20to%20an%20estimated%20global%20temperature%20of%2015%20degrees%20Celsius%2C%20but%20the%20institute%20has%20since%20informed%20Worldwatch%20that%20a%20better%20base%20number%20would%20be%2014%20degrees%20Celsius.%20James%20Hansen%2C%20Goddard%20Institute%20for%20Space%20Studies%2C%20New%20York%2C%20email%20to%20author%2C%2018%20January%201998.%E2%80%9D&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=EfZRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=P... > In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998.” Can someone please explain this unexplained change on how avg surface temperature between 1951 and 1980 went from claims that it was 15C to now being claimed it was 14C? Edited: changed magic to unexplained change

Tepix 7y ago
Interesting observation. Changing by a whole degree celsius is quite a big change that needs a good reason. If you wouldn't use the word "magic" in your post, I'd perceive it as neutral/curious.
- busymom0 7y ago
  I am curious but I have pointed out similar discrepancies quite a few times but never received a satisfactory response. Now a days, I am pretty much afraid to even point out such discrepancies in other data too. I can share another example if anyone's curious.
  - bsaul 7y ago
    are you familiar with the blog made by tony heller (also on youtube) ? He regularely points out those exact same remark. I am very careful to wait until other people confirms that there is indeed a methodological problem before jumping to conclusion, but it really sounds very interesting.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      I read Heller's blog. I've also done a bit of double checking of his work because indeed, what he keeps uncovering is extremely interesting and should I feel really have been discussed in popular journalism about climate before now. I want to check more of his claims in future. But for now, I only checked how many data points in the NOAA US temperature dataset are now the output of model simulations and not actual measurements: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ I verified the "Percent of USHCN Monthly Temperature Data which is fabricated" graph by downloading the source dataset and writing some scripts to process it. I was able to replicate his numbers. It's alarming that over half of reported temperature readings in the USA are actually not readings at all but rather estimates by a computer program. I also spent some time reading the source code of the programs doing the temperature simulation but wasn't impressed. It's very old FORTRAN that has no unit tests of any sort. There are code comments giving the basic gist of what it's doing, but it's clear that the code has been grown and patched ad-hoc since the 1980s. There's nothing resembling real software engineering. However there are also reasons to not be alarmed. Some years ago climate skeptic bloggers started pointing out extensive problems with the network of weather stations used to calculate US temperatures. It had degraded over time as measuring stations dropped out, moved, had things built next to them etc. This in turn led to climatologists making extensive adjustments to the raw data, which is a very sketchy thing for scientists to be doing. Congress agreed there was a problem and released funding to build a pristine new temperature network, which started operating some years ago. The skeptic bloggers agreed that the design of this new network was excellent, and the good news is the output of it matches the adjusted output of the old network (in fact, the adjusted old network measurements are still being used as canonical, which is a bit weird). So it seems that the current set of adjustments is not a problem even though it looks alarming. The bad news is that this is partly because the adjustments made to modern measurements are quite small compared to the extent to which historical temperatures have been adjusted. Heller has been investigating the TOB adjustment in particular, which is near non-existent now but massively alters past readings. It's based on the belief that for most of the 20th century weather station operators didn't know how to properly use a min/max thermometer and that this methodological failure was never documented in primary sources, but has to be inferred from the recorded data. I haven't made up my mind about these adjustments yet and remain in the neutral "they're probably OK" position. TOB is one but there are many others. The issue for Heller is not only methodological but also "where there's smoke there's fire", that is, the adjustments might be correct but everything around them is extremely suspicious, starting with the fact that - as this thread shows - climatologists keep adjusting even very recent data. How hard can it possibly be to read a thermometer and write down the numbers? Apparently, very hard.

Tepix 7y ago

Interesting observation. Changing by a whole degree celsius is quite a big change that needs a good reason. If you wouldn't use the word "magic" in your post, I'd perceive it as neutral/curious.

busymom0 7y ago
I am curious but I have pointed out similar discrepancies quite a few times but never received a satisfactory response. Now a days, I am pretty much afraid to even point out such discrepancies in other data too. I can share another example if anyone's curious.
- bsaul 7y ago
  are you familiar with the blog made by tony heller (also on youtube) ? He regularely points out those exact same remark. I am very careful to wait until other people confirms that there is indeed a methodological problem before jumping to conclusion, but it really sounds very interesting.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    I read Heller's blog. I've also done a bit of double checking of his work because indeed, what he keeps uncovering is extremely interesting and should I feel really have been discussed in popular journalism about climate before now. I want to check more of his claims in future. But for now, I only checked how many data points in the NOAA US temperature dataset are now the output of model simulations and not actual measurements: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ I verified the "Percent of USHCN Monthly Temperature Data which is fabricated" graph by downloading the source dataset and writing some scripts to process it. I was able to replicate his numbers. It's alarming that over half of reported temperature readings in the USA are actually not readings at all but rather estimates by a computer program. I also spent some time reading the source code of the programs doing the temperature simulation but wasn't impressed. It's very old FORTRAN that has no unit tests of any sort. There are code comments giving the basic gist of what it's doing, but it's clear that the code has been grown and patched ad-hoc since the 1980s. There's nothing resembling real software engineering. However there are also reasons to not be alarmed. Some years ago climate skeptic bloggers started pointing out extensive problems with the network of weather stations used to calculate US temperatures. It had degraded over time as measuring stations dropped out, moved, had things built next to them etc. This in turn led to climatologists making extensive adjustments to the raw data, which is a very sketchy thing for scientists to be doing. Congress agreed there was a problem and released funding to build a pristine new temperature network, which started operating some years ago. The skeptic bloggers agreed that the design of this new network was excellent, and the good news is the output of it matches the adjusted output of the old network (in fact, the adjusted old network measurements are still being used as canonical, which is a bit weird). So it seems that the current set of adjustments is not a problem even though it looks alarming. The bad news is that this is partly because the adjustments made to modern measurements are quite small compared to the extent to which historical temperatures have been adjusted. Heller has been investigating the TOB adjustment in particular, which is near non-existent now but massively alters past readings. It's based on the belief that for most of the 20th century weather station operators didn't know how to properly use a min/max thermometer and that this methodological failure was never documented in primary sources, but has to be inferred from the recorded data. I haven't made up my mind about these adjustments yet and remain in the neutral "they're probably OK" position. TOB is one but there are many others. The issue for Heller is not only methodological but also "where there's smoke there's fire", that is, the adjustments might be correct but everything around them is extremely suspicious, starting with the fact that - as this thread shows - climatologists keep adjusting even very recent data. How hard can it possibly be to read a thermometer and write down the numbers? Apparently, very hard.