1880 IS getting colder!

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Here's my line of thinking:

These scientists are getting their historical record data from different sources. Some are direct temperature readings, others are various proxy data (tree rings, grapes harvests, ice cores, boreholes, corals, etc etc), some from the northern hemisphere, some from the southern, and so on... and each claiming to be the more accurate reading.

Now depending on how you mix these data up to arrive at an overall mean temperature for that time frame, you will come up with different answers of +/- degrees. And in this case, we are calculating temperatures to the tenths of degrees, so there should no allowance of error margin.

Follow that as you go further down the timeline plugging in the data, and you get more and more eschewed.

It would be like measuring a 12 foot run of countertop to cut and fit into place nice and snug up against your wall... If the wall is slightly out of square by 1/8th of an inch at the corner, by the time you reach the end of the 12 foot run it'll be out by over 1/2 an inch at that opposite end.

If this were the case, wouldn't the varying temperatures be both higher and lower in a random fashion? As OP displays, the temps are uniformly becoming lower, which is sketchy as hell and implies tampering

reply to post by PuterMan



Great job OP.. this kind of investigative work is why I visit ATS

The more information and theories put out there, the more likely we are to get to the truth

Originally posted by PuterMan

I was musing on the fact that I had contacted a well known climate blog about this, but got no response. I did not know how to explain what I was seeing but I thought they may be interested.

So what is this "well known" climate blog called? Maybe us ATS members can bombard them also to see if we can make 'em talk

reply to post by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by phrig

 

How strange. That is about the time I contacted the well known climate blog about this. The blog was WUWT by the way. I never got any response from them.

It was WattsUpWithThat, and with his (Anthony Watts) paper he's working on in
regards to surface stations UHI bias, and he just the other day put on a 24 hour program to counter the Al Gore "dirty weather" 24 hour Gorathon, he's likely a busy guy. Running his blog as well. You should visit it, if you haven't already. There a link to his paper on the right side of the page. Not submitted yet, but apparently very close.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Not to say he shouldn't have responded Puterman though, at least a thanks, but I am aware of it, or something like that.

Edit: Another thought, note my reply on the first page, as "we skeptics" have been aware of the tinkering with the data for years. Also maybe you didn't read the entire thread? It ain't as long some (Yellowstone) of the other threads Puterman posts on!

reply to post by PuterMan


Good catch, people should have realized this a very long time ago. The entire AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) SCAM depends on lies, cooked data/information, and false assumptions/beliefs.

The main proponents of the AGW SCAM have been caught time and again lying, publishing false information, and even deleting raw data so no one could check their lies.

Do you guys remember this?

In at least one of the emails that were hacked from CRU Prof. Jones mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...

Not to mention the fact that CRU, and Jones had deleted their raw temperature data.

We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

reply to post by PuterMan


I went through this thread and I went to some of the linked sources and could not get to the bottom of this matter, but let me suggest this possibility, which I believe is quite viable:

The historical data is being updated because of recalibrating the older, sparser temperature recordings from the past.

First off, there used to be fewer weather stations; for instance, there were fewer cities, towns and settlements where records were kept, and I imagine there was a large bias towards northern hemisphere recordings in NA, Europe. Africa and Asia. One very obvious example is that 1880 there were not weather stations in Antartica, but there are now. Also there are likely now temperature gauges throughout the ocean on floating buoys, which weren't around in 1880 either. I believe there are also remote-sensing methods of taking the earth's temperature via satellites, which also weren't available in 1880.

So currently we have what is likely a very accurate estimate of the average earth temperature for recent years. The trick, then, is how to relate current average global temperatures with historical data that was much more sparse. I imagine this calibrating of old data relative to current data evolves with time, and given the examples I provided above, I'm not surprised that the recalibrated/corrected older data and older average temperatures decreased relative to current overall measurements. Having temperatures taken in the Anartic, in the oceans and in a wider range of places, including more high-altitude stations, which were previously near inaccessible, would tend to lower the average temperature, i.e. add predominantly a lot of low values and the average drops.

With the continued increase in monitoring of the earth with more and more observation points, it doesn't surprise me at all that corrected historical average world temperatures change slightly with time and with a downward trend in particular.

There may also be other factors used in determining these past temperatures which are measurement based, but rather model based. One is the amount of Artic/Antartic ice sheets and mountain glaciation. Snow and ice has a higher albedo and reflects more light/radiation. The ice sheets and bodies have clearly decreased in size, so less heat is reflected back to space and so the earth warms more. There are likely models to account for this. Such modeling is useful for it would help to estimate temperatures in areas that aren't well sampled by weather stations.

There may well be another correction too; this would be to correct for temperature readings at stations that are in areas of increased urbanization and development. I believe the temperature record goes back to the 1500's. Imagine a weather station in London, Paris or Berlin or other population centers where temperatures were recorded. As time goes buy the area gets more developed and the local typical temperature increases because of heat sources, i.e. more people, fireplaces and factories. A typical measurement in 1880 in such a place is likely higher than one made at the same place in 1580. Admittedly this affect would increase with time, so there should also be a correction for the same spot between 1880 and 1980, which would correct an 1880 temperature reading upwards relative to a 1980 one, but it would still reduce it to the 1580 one.

There is one other temporal effect for the the mid and late 1880's in particular: the eruption of Krakatoa. It is already know that this event caused a world-wide dropping of temperatures, but given that it happened in the southern hemisphere, I imagine temperatures there were affected even more, but this was just the half of the earth most poorly sampled by weather stations, so I imagine there is a correction for this affect, based on established weather conditions.

To the OP, it is unfortunate that the weather blogger didn't return your e-mail queries, as I imagine his/her explanation for the change in historical world-wide temperature averages would have an explanation similar to this. But this is just a supposition on my part. I would have liked to see more of an attempt by posters on this thread to get at the heart of the matter to see if this is the case, rather than just to go with the conspiratorial stuff that the government is trying to convince us that global warming is happening. Anyone who has paid attention to political bureaucrats' influence on government scientists in the last couple of decades knows that the people in charge are generally influenced more heavily by corporations than their own scientists, and that scientific reports on various environmental issues, including food safety, have been repressed/kept secret. It is not the scientists that are trying manipulate reality.

Originally posted by Psychoparrot
....
Why should TPTB do this - because of the money earning potential behind climate change industries/taxes? What on earth do they want all this money for? Or is it just to keep us in a constant state of fear?
...

TPTB have given the answer to these questions you made.

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN (UNESCO is a branch of the UN in case you didn't know). It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL SOCIALIST/FASCIST GOVERNMENT derived from CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...

They are getting money through the AGW scam to escape the real NATURAL changes which the Earth is undergoing and which will get worse meanwhile convincing a large percentage of people that "mankind is at fault so we must sequester atmospheric CO2 through a One World Government to combat Climate Change" meanwhile they squeeze us of money and destroy all middle classes, and make us all poor around the world...

"Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe."

So read Saturday's headline to Senior Editor Gary Stix's piece at one of the nation's most popular science magazines Scientific American:

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” [...]

The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers...In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.
...

Link

Sequestering atmospheric CO2 will stunt all plantlife, and green biomass on Earth which will mean less food for everyone. When plants, trees, etc have less CO2, as it exists now and as tptb want it to be, all green biomass uses more water which also means less water for humans and animals.

TPTB, and those rich enough will be able to feed themselves and live relatively an easy life, meanwhile in the rest of the world there will be MORE starvation and MORE need for water, both which would be solved with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present.

As the saying goes TPTB "are killing two birds with one stone."

reply to post by PuterMan


That's great! please give me more and more heat! I'm freezing up here in Canada. It's -15c approx out. it sucks. And I don't have a passport at the moment so I can't get out of this icebox. It just sucks. PLEASE MORE HEAT!!! PLEASE GLOBAL WARMING PLEASE!!!!

reply to post by Panic2k11

Well again you are feeding the ignorants, when I say climate change I'm clearly not referring to "normal climate pasterns" but to the prevalence of abnormal ones.

I have the feeling that despite being rude to me you are actually in agreement so I will go easy on you.

The question really is have we been around long enough with accurate records to determine what is and is not a 'normal climate pattern'?

The answer is of course NO. The planet has been around for billions of years and with regard to recording climate we have been around a few thousand at the very best. I do not believe that in all honesty we can say what is or is not a 'normal' pattern with regard to weather, earthquakes, volcanoes or anything else.

I quite liked the first comment in reply to the WUWT article:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Please could Jim Hansen make it warm last winter, I was frozen, and still haven’t thawed out..

reply to post by gort51

In the 1880s there was MUCH MORE Pollution around than nowadays, for almost 100 years there was more pollution, EVERYBODY burnt wood and coal and Cow dung to heat water, Cook food, Heat houses/buildings, Build Railways, feed Locomotives, Ships, Transport, build buildings....etc etc...

London smog, Frisco smog etc. You know I had not considered that aspect, but then that, I suppose, would be said to be that start of our downfall and the road to ruin, if indeed that is the road we are on.

I think it behoves people to remember that these weather events, which are not in themselves climate, have happened before with just as much ferocity and this penchant for blaming everything on 'global warming' or 'climate change' is simply wrong and misleading,but of course it is done to suit the agenda.

Originally posted by mwood
reply to post by PuterMan

 

WOW. In the last 7 years the mean temperature raised by six hundredths of a degree Celsius.

.06 isn't much at all.

So basically if it's true and the trend continues then it will be 20 years before it raises about 1 degree.

Not too worried yet.....

I think you missed the point. It is not the fact that the last 7 year mean was raised by 6 hundredths or the earlier ones were reduced, it is the fact that it is DISHONEST.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Perhaps it may be worthwhile for you to look into where each of your source reports are collecting their source data from ? You might find out one guy got his from grape harvests in Italy while someone else got theirs from Yucca tree rings in Central America.

Basically it is NASA. As to where they get it from I am afraid I do not know but it probably is tree rings and ice bores - although I believe that data only going back to 1880 is by observation for the most part but I may be wrong there so don't quote me.

I rather like the time machine idea. You may be on to something there. As they warp back to the present day the data gets distorted. As the time machine travels so fast through the time warp the Doppler effect reduces the values.

reply to post by wlf15y

No, Puterman is comparing instrumental data, and what they're doing to it, not proxy data.
Now that's not to say that they're making these adjustments according to proxy data, which
would be foolish at best, but I don't think they are. They're making excuses to adjust it, mostly
due to alleged "time of observation" discrepancies. It is interesting though as the adjustments
ALWAYS result in a "cooler' past and ever warming present. AND, it's not like they went
through the data, made the adjustments, and that was that. They continue to go back,
sometimes MONTHLY and make more adjustments. Somewhere I read how they made
adjustments over and over and over, for a period of like 6 months, continually adjusting
the past down, and the present up, to all the same data.

If anything, all the metadata is probably garbage by now.

Bravo My Friend! Persakelly right and could not have put it better.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Example is your worksheet 2005-11: The 1880 temps from Jan-Dec are different from worksheet 2005-12 which is different from worksheet 2007-08... and so on. If each of these are coming from different science articles, then again I ask: Where are they (each different scientist) getting their monthly/yearly data from ?

Before having a good look, I just assumed you were pulling all of your numbers from the one gistemp website you linked in your blog, and making your yearly temp change comparisons from that ?

No need to be lost. that is EXACTLY right.

Your assumption is correct, these all come from the one source which is archived copies of the site back to 2005. If you go to my blog and download the PDF file you will see links at the bottom of each set of data that take you back to the archived copy in Egypt.

The only one that I don't have an archived copy of is 2012-09 since that was data form the target text file that I stored. As I said in the blurb I was just adding to the bottom of that sheet so that particular one may be a mixture of various months at the bottom few lines. However it does look as if I refreshed it in August of this year so the only figure that is different is the September value. I should really call that sheet 2012-08.

ETA: Just got to your subsequent post and see the penny dropped making this post irrelevant.

reply to post by wlf15y


BTW he has now responded and says he will publish. We shall see. I accept that he is a very busy man so I am not annoyed or anything.

reply to post by PuterMan

Puterman, thanks for pointing out global warming/climate change history revisionist tactics going on here. You have obviously spent a lot of time working on this and I appreciate those efforts.

I have questioned the work done by the AGW crowd and their honesty before, now we can see that they are actively trying to promote their agenda by 'adjusting' formerly established data.

S&F.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by PuterMan

 

One very obvious example is that 1880 there were not weather stations in Antartica, but there are now.

Is it so obvious? I am sure temperature recording were taken on the various expeditions for 1830 onwards.

including more high-altitude stations, which were previously near inaccessible, would tend to lower the average temperature

If you study the subject you will realise that first there are now no weather stations above 62.5°N and second many other high altitude stations in the Andes for example have been dropped and the temperatures of the lower altitude stations have been extrapolated to fill the gap - completely the opposite of what you were suggesting. It does not take much mathematics to realise what this will do to the means.

The same has happened in Russia and various other places.

There may also be other factors used in determining these past temperatures which are measurement based, but rather model based.

Unfortunately models are not actually reality and to substitute modelled data for actual data is bad science. As I programmer I know only too well how easy it is to a) make errors in the model, b) plug in erroneous parameters intentionally or otherwise.

One is the amount of Artic/Antartic ice sheets and mountain glaciation. Snow and ice has a higher albedo and reflects more light/radiation. The ice sheets and bodies have clearly decreased in size, so less heat is reflected back to space and so the earth warms more. There are likely models to account for this. Such modeling is useful for it would help to estimate temperatures in areas that aren't well sampled by weather stations.

Your hypothesis would only be valid if we were attempting to extrapolate backwards from now to 1880 and HAD NO REAL DATA upon which to rely. Since we do have the data to use the extrapolations (if that is what is done) is bad science.

There may well be another correction too; this would be to correct for temperature readings at stations that are in areas of increased urbanization and development. I believe the temperature record goes back to the 1500's. Imagine a weather station in London, Paris or Berlin or other population centers where temperatures were recorded. As time goes buy the area gets more developed and the local typical temperature increases because of heat sources, i.e. more people, fireplaces and factories. A typical measurement in 1880 in such a place is likely higher than one made at the same place in 1580. Admittedly this affect would increase with time, so there should also be a correction for the same spot between 1880 and 1980, which would correct an 1880 temperature reading upwards relative to a 1980 one, but it would still reduce it to the 1580 one.

Not logical Mr Spock!If you are going to use urbanised weather stations to reduce the 1880 temperature (which is patently nonsense) then you must also adjust the current day figure to remove the urbanisation. Ergo no change differences.

There is one other temporal effect for the the mid and late 1880's in particular: the eruption of Krakatoa. It is already know that this event caused a world-wide dropping of temperatures

Logic would therefore dictate that if temperatures in 1883, and may be a couple of years after, were reduced due to Krakatoa then you would have to RAISE the means not lower them even further thus increasing the effect of the volcano.

It is not the scientists that are trying manipulate reality.

Dream on my friend! You think the Governments can do this?

reply to post by elvisofdallas


Check the old textbooks. See if they still say it. Do you think its at all possible that we are in a parallel universe from where you grew up?

Anyway, I'm astounded by such things as well. It really leads me in two directions....that the majority of people are not real, that we're in a matrix and the majority are simply sentient programs, or the multiple parallel universes that we can move between by our decisions (you might not even be alive in the other timeline).

reply to post by PuterMan


Can please provide links to data that we can check otherwise those charts are entirely out of context and created by you and totally subjective.

FYI : do you know that in order to correlate older data with newer data an adjustment has to be made don't you? For example there is absolutely no way in hell any skeptic here can argue that modern methods of measuring temperature are LESS accurate than older ones. So you then have to do a comparison of measurements between old and new methods. Guess what, suprise suprise there is a difference. This means older less accurate measurements need adjusting in order to compare them to more modern more accurate measurements.

Surely this is the correct thing to do. If this process happens to conflict with your belief systrem then tough.

Also note that is impossible (except in Star Trek) to apply an adjustement to all historical data instantaneously.

Now the only way we can determine (without other folks going off on the usual rah rah rah see I am right ATS rant) is for you to provide links to the data that you state is changing. Both the old and changed data. Since you state the historical archive has not changed then that is a perfect link to a base reference. Once we have the link to the "changed" data then we can assess why.