T

Temperature corrections of the Northern hemisphere

Posted by Administrator (admin) on 18th March, 2010
T >>


Most skeptics are aware, but it cannot be repeated too often: Temperature data presented before the global warming movement really started in the mid 1980´ies compared with recent official temperatures shows that the temperature trends 1940-1978 has been changed fundamentally.

I believe the best way to show this is simply to compare temperatures of the largest possible temperature area from before the 1980´ies with the same area presented today.  The area best suited for this is the entire Northern hemisphere. Temperatures in National Geographic 1976:


(Alternatively NH temperatures from Stanley 1975 )
Now compare the 1935-1975 decline for the same area - the entire Northern hemisphere - presented by CRU/Brohan 2006:

  
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/CR_data/Monthly/HadCRUGNS_3plots.gif
Below, the two NH temperatures datasets above (National Geographic 1976 vs 2008) are shown together:

History has been rewritten.
The original 1976 temperatures from National geographic for 1935-75 shows almost 0,5 degrees Celsius decline. This is why scientists world wide became worried about a coming ice age.


In 2008 according to CRU (and thus to some extend GHCN) the temperature decline 1935-75 has been reduced to approximately 0,15 degrees Celsius. The decline appears reduced approximately 0,34K


So approximately 70% of the decline in temperatures after 1935-40 has been removed, it seems.


What is the importance? What is the impact if the original temperature set of 1976 is in fact best estimate?
1)      The unique and dramatic temperatures of today, appears to be a mostly empty claim.
2)      Effects of CO2 are often evaluated and confirmed by examining the temperatures 1940-2008. So, faulty temperatures necessitate CO2 effect to be reconsidered.
3)     Effects on sea level rise predicted for the future are often based on fast rising temperature trends, and thus sea level rise would have to be reconsidered.
4)      In short, most predictions of future consequences from climate change are build on the “fact” that temperature where rising strongly 1940-2008, and would need to be reconsidered.


In other words, the need to examine the correctness of the massive corrections to temperature data simply cannot be exaggerated.


But most of the global warming movement documentation is built on huge corrections in temperature that are not peer reviewed. Not even made public. So the claim that global warming movement documentation is peer reviewed is to some degree nonsense as long as the crucial underlying basic data are not for the world to see.


This is why leak from CRU might appear necessary. The CRU leak of data from program comments, program codes to email writings confirms a clearly as anyone could demand, that people has been focused on reducing the size of the 1940-temperatures - just as we can see from the temperature illustrations above.


When finally the pressure on CRU to release original temperature data, the size of corrections and so on, then we learn late 2009 that CRU somehow has “lost data” for good, so we cannot learn if they actually corrected data more than can be accounted for. This happens after Phil Jones from CRU writes in mail that he will rather loose data than deliver it.

 

Stanley S M , 1989 Earth and Life through Time page 574, after J.M. Mitchell, in Energy and Climate; National Academy of Sciences, Washington. W.H. Freeman &Co New York.(According to John Daly, "Stanley 1975" is a work from 1989 that is representing a work from NAS, 1975)

Matthews, S.W. 1976 (November) What’s Happening to our Climate? National Geographic 576-615.

 

Also checkout NOAA NCAR report on global cooling in Newsweek April 1975.

http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg

NOAA/NCAR presents a full global temperature graph, strongly averaged stopping already in 1970. The decline after 1940 is normally accepted to be smaller on the SH, and thus the NCAR graph for full golbe ending in 1970 appears to equal Stanley and Mathews rather well:

NCAR: Decline after 1940 for full globe reached approximately 0,35 K when cutting off in 1970.

 

CRU temperatures are used by IPCC when representing the worlds temperatures, for example Scandinavian temperatures.


See more about temperature corrections:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/t.php
 

Last changed: 18th March, 2010 at 09:03:58

Back

Comments

Just not true. (national Geographic "land only") By Frank Lansner on 15th February, 2012 at 13:41:09
You claim that the National Geographic 76 graphic NH is land only.
This is not the case, it is based on other datasets, Bodyko and Angel/Korshover. Here the cover for the latter, se fig 9 of:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part2-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-183.php

In the NG article there is no mentioning that data should be "only land" as you claim.

So how can you claim (out of the blue?) that the NG 76 graphic should be land only? Do you have some documentation for this?
Apples to Oranges By Unknown on 13th November, 2010 at 15:43:52
The National Geo graph plotted only NH *land* temperatures. You plotted *all* temperatures.

When you plot *Northern Hemisphere land temperatures* with a 12 month moving average, scale the chart vertically to match the two charts, (and adjust for the horizontal 'page fold' distortion caused by the fact the person scanning the National Geo pages didn't get the magazine flat so the years right before 1960 are 'squished') - they match pretty well.

http://snowhare.com/climate/charts/NHNatGeo76_vs_nh_land_temps.png

IOW: You compared two *different* things.
For now i have removed that statement. By Frank Lansner on 19th March, 2010 at 10:40:23
K.R. Frank Lansner
CRU GISS peer-reviewed By Unknown on 19th March, 2010 at 07:43:37
Yes, their work is peer-reviewed. The data gathering, processing and methodology is described in a good number of papers they've published.
Source of the plot By Unknown on 17th March, 2010 at 20:19:38
The source of the National Geographic data appears to be mostly:

The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth
princeton.edu
MI Budyko - Tellus, 1969 - aos.princeton.edu

Google "author:budyko temperature" to get the link to the PDF.

NG appear to have exaggerated the temperature scale by about 30%. The Budyko temperatures are from long term Europe and American stations - presumably surface stations. Obviously HadCRUT3 includes more of the Northern Hemisphere, and also sea surface temperatures.

The Budyko plot seems reasonably in line with current US temperatures and is better in line with GISSTemp than with HadCRU.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Thanks!! Working on a "part 2" By Frank Lansner on 17th March, 2010 at 19:13:29
We will check out the good tips of yours thankyou so much!

I will post part 2 quite soon - K.R Frank Lansner
Nice Work !! By Unknown on 17th March, 2010 at 15:02:49
I came from the link at WUWT and may have to add your site to my daily reading !!
CIA confirms cooling By Unknown on 17th March, 2010 at 10:41:42
Hi Frank

You are presumably aware of this document from the CIA which was written at the height of the global cooling scare in the mid 1970's?

Amongst the refereces are Hubert Lamb, who as you know wrote frequently of climatic history and specfically makes references to the cooling of the world following the hot 1940's- for example in his book 'Climate, History and the Modern World' first punlished in 1984

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

I have also posted the document over on your thread at WUWT.

tonyb
Why peer review? CRU and GHCN isnt peer reviewed..! By Unknown on 24th February, 2010 at 15:55:15
Thats the point, CRU, GISS and GHCN (mother of all corrections) are not peer reviewed and not even published.

We certainly cannot demand Stanley and Mathews to be peer reviewed then. Stanley and Mathews are the state of art back then just as CRU and GHCN etc should be today.
Peer review? By Frank Lansner on 24th February, 2010 at 12:45:01
I believe that Stanley in 1989 reproduced a work from NAS from 1975:
Stanley S M , 1989 Earth and Life through Time page 574, after J.M. Mitchell, in Energy and Climate; National Academy of Sciences, Washington. W.H. Freeman &Co New York,

Matthews, S.W. 1976 (November) What’s Happening to our Climate? National Geographic 576-615.

Here in Newsweek, april 1975, NOAA/NCAR scary cooling story. Their graph is full global i think and heavily averaged and only goes to 1970, so its far from as good as the full NH data from Stanley and Mathews for this compare.

But the cooling that they report from all over the world hardly is explained by the Hadcrut 2006 version. All sources of temperature data tells that the cooling in SH 1935-75 was smaller than the NH.
Therefore the full global that shows decline of 0,35 K when stopping in 1970 is quite consistent with the results i showed from Stanley and Mathews.
http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg

SO: A cooling 1935-75 far bigger than CRU/NOAA today presents where in the mid 1970´ies backed up by NCAR, NOAA, NAS, National geographic, Newsweek and probably more.
So these data where the state of the art in 1975-76. Im not sure if NOAA, NCAR etc. used peer review process for these things at the time.

K.R. Frank Lansner
Very interesting comparison. By Unknown on 24th February, 2010 at 11:59:22
Were Matthews (1976) and Stanley (1975) peer reviewed studies?

Add Comment