Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No…

Posted by greg2213 on January 18, 2010

8/26/14: Found this (referenced on G+: ) –  Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

this is the link. 

8/17/14: Our Climategate buddies told us that they wanted to get rid of the 1940’s temperature blip, without even knowing why it existed. So they did.

5/12/13:

In 1998, Hansen wrote: it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934, which occurred during the Dust Bowl era. Here.

Update 4/29/13:

It’s necessary for NCDC to heavily adjust temps to continue the alarm. The high temps in its published reports are far from what’s shown by their data. The animation below switches between the measured data, and the published temperatures.

NCDCAdjustementsAnnual

And here’s the original page.

Update 4/13: More records set way back when. 

He (James Hansen) wrote this in 1999, before he completely turned to the dark side of fraudulent science.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

The US Used To Be Much Hotter

Update 3/25: And still more from Goddard: All GISS US Warming Is Due To Data Tampering

Update 2/4: More from that tireless Goddard fellow. Far more heat records set in the 30s than this last year. Now one could probably quibble about averages vs record setting (ie: a high average might not mean more records) or about this just being US temps. Funny how such scrutiny isn’t given to hysteria supporting the warming meme. 40% Of US All-Time Record Maximums Were Set During The 1930s

Update 1/31: More GISS shenanigans. Using iffy data for Antarctica in order to manufacture warming.

Update 1/25: PDF of a German study of doctored GISS records. It’s all in German, but the conclusion (on the last page) is in English. Here’s the original and here’s the local copy. Some people are having difficulty loading the original file, but the local copy seems to work just fine.

  • Modifications obviously in most stations, perhaps in all.
  • Modifications yielded mostly a stronger warming
  • Some indicate cooling – to pretend homogensization
  • Methods vary depending on setting: decreasing data of beginning sections, decreasing data between 1920 and 1950, increasing data of final sections, deleting data of disturbing sections.

Update: 1/11/13: Yes, still more. Here’s Part 2. And what’s this nonsense about 2012 being warmer than 1998? GISS is the only record which comes even close to that. The 30s were the hottest and driest.

Update: 8/8/12: More warm fails and adjustments. Hansen claims there’s something unusual about modern warmth. He’s wrong. More debunking of Hansen.

More Hansen/GISS data tampering, and still more.

Update 7/10/12

NY Times hysteria about melting ice over the last century, WUWT comment.

More headlines, from various sources. Part one of that article is here and discusses the “Global Warming” proposition.

An issue is that pretty much all of the warming observed over the last hundred years or see seems to be the result of adjustments to the historical temperature record. This image tracks some of those adjustments to the NOAA adjustments. Temps were modified to be cooler in earlier years and warmer in later year. The graph shows the magniture of the adjustments.

Update 11/13/11:

Guess we’ll just have to say “yes” to that question:

NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder – Scroll down the post to hit the 1934 stuff.

Update 8/1:

More “adjustments” from GISS. Steve points out that “Through the magic of adjustment, GISS has been able to cool the past by two degrees…”

GISS raw data shows Brenham, Texas cooling

GISS raw data shows Brenham, Texas cooling, then warming.

Elsewhere, Greenland puts on over 250′ of ice since ’42…

Two B-17 bombers and six P-38 Lightning fighters are buried under 265 feet of ice and snow that has accumulated since bad weather and low fuel forced them to abort a flight to England in 1942.

the rest: Team Aims to Dig Up Planes Buried in Icecap;8 Aircraft Worth Millions Crash-Landed in Greenland 47 Years Ago

This is for the wags who whine that the US is only 2% of the Earth’s surface area, so doesn’t really count:  Just 2% Of The Planet. More on the Bad Weather page.

Update 7/22/11:

From Goddard, Steve: – Prior to the year 2000, the two hottest years in the GISS US record were 1934 and 1921 respectively. 1998 was the third hottest year, and more than half a degree cooler than 1934.

After adjustments, 1998 became warmer. Here’s a blink graph, from Steve’s site, comparing the two. Click the image for a slightly bigger (and complete) picture.

1934 temps compared to 1998 temps

Update: another post on the subject, with lots of links in the comments to more interesting stuff.

In 2000, USHCN apparently wasn’t happy with the fact that the 1930s was the warmest decade – so they gave the past a demotion and bumped the 1990s way up….

Here’s the rest: Cooking The Books At USHCN

Recently there’s been some news about some fudging of the numbers in the land based  temperature data used to determine which way the climate is heading. This isn’t the same thing as another manipulation of the temperature record, though it may be related…

The Cricket discusses number fudging

Check out any temperature record going back to the beginning of the 1900s and you will see a bump in the 30s and 40s. 1934 was the hot point of that bump.You’ll even see this in the various (discredited) hockey stick graphs. Of course, pretty much all of those sticks and other graphs show current temps to be significantly warmer than the 30s.

So why is this interesting? Because, depending on a couple of things, it seems that 1934 was actually about as warm as 1998. Which pretty much kills off any hockey stick. (update note: this is for US data, but since the US data has been called the gold standard for temp data I think my remarks still apply since they are regarding manipulation, even though ’34’s warmness may have been regional.)

How did ’34 get so warm (or cool off?)  a few years back 1934 was originally shown to be as warm as 1998, then NASA adjusted the data to show 1998 as warmer. Then Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, pointed out some errors and the “official” temperature data was adjusted again to show 1934 as the high point. In fact, only 3 of the top ten dates, from that set of data, are from the current decades.

Naturally the alarmist crowd said that the adjustments (boosting 1934) were insignificant. CA has more discussion on this issue, including this one: Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”?

The temps have been adjusted again, a few times, since then. This is why you generally won’t see graphs showing  ’34 to be close to ’98. In fact,  here’s a graph that shows the competition between 1934 and 1998 as the warmest years. Looks like someone can’t make up their minds…

The Air Vent has more detail on this, noting that ’34 has been as much as .5 C higher than ’98. Doesn’t sound like much until you realize that the entire trend from 1895 to now is about 0.6C

A quick detour:

Ok, there are a LOT of issues with the land based temp records. SurfaceStations.org does a nice job of questioning the quality of these stations. Location quality, station quality, areas covered (and not covered,) recording error, heat island effects, physical moving of the stations, physical changes to the station (paint, screens, gear., etc.,) and probably more.

There are also questions of data manipulation shown in the Climategate mess (including the loss of raw data) and some other emails that show NASA manipulation of data. Currently it looks like the surface temperature record might be called unreliable.

End of detour

Let’s pretend that the surface record is basically good and get back to the adjustments. Note the above linked table, on CA, of the top 10 warm years.

Now, the real reason that this adjustment stuff is interesting is this: If it can be shown that the 30s were as warm as the 90’s then:

  • the Catastrophic Warming idea is dead.
  • The world may well be warming, generally, but Man’s part in it is tiny and any warming, long or short term, is due to natural causes and there has been no increase in warming since the 30s peak.
  • Al Gore (all other hysterics) and the UN IPCC are selling pure fantasy.
  • With there being no there there, grant monies for AGW research will fall precipitously.
  • Not to mention that all of the CO2 power and money grabs, real and planned, are reduced to nothing more than power and greed.

There’s a major vested interest, by many parties, in maintaining the idea that the last few years were definitely warmer than the 30s. Sales of Al Gores’ books and movies, for example.

Are current times warmer? That’s very hard to say. The satellite records just don’t go back that far. They only go back to a time when the news media was pumping “the coming ice age.” Satellites can’t say a thing about 1934. The surface records, which should be able to say something about ’34, are iffy, at best.

So if you believe in AGW, and/or that the keepers of the data are 100% honest and that they are doing the best they can with an iffy product, then ’98 was warmer the ’34 peak and the modern warming took us to a higher level than that reached in the 30s and 40s. That doesn’t say that people were responsible for that warming, but it opens up the possibility.

If you believe that the data has been fudged and that 1934 was about as warm as the ’98 peak then the more recent warming is just a rebound from the 50 & 60s dip, not an increase from ’34. This means that there is no longer term warming and Mr. Gore should get a new job.

Update:

Another comparison of the 30s/40s to modern times. Also explains why there was a “concern” about the coming ice age in the 70s. BTW – everytime I see that second graph the 40s hump is a bit smaller and the modern hump is bigger. Now imagine the earlier hump being the larger one. That’s what the data looked like before the various “adjustments.”

Update:

another page that makes a similar point:

NASA’s James Hansen is the United States’ leading scientific alarmist about global warming. He believes global warming is accelerating. Apparently it’s his revisions of the data that are causing the acceleration.

This document examines the historical revision in the global temperature change as defined by Hansen over the decades. Hansen’s global temperature graphs are examined from 1981 to 2007.

from a comparison of Hansen’s own charts


Advertisements

4 Responses to “1934 Warmer than 1998? Yes, No, Yes, No…”

  1. rogerthesurf said

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

  2. Glenn Tamblyn said

    There is a common misconception here that I assume you have fallen into inadvertently. Nasa’s correction was that some of the warmest years were in fact in the 1930’s for the USA (the lower 48). However the claims for the warmest years being in the 2000’s are for Global temperatures – don’t forget the USA is only 1.5% of the world. Steve McIntyre does make this clear in his post all though perhaps not loudly enough. Your post just talks about temperatures.

    Even more fundamentally, 70% of the world’s surface area is oceans so to really judge warming our primary focus should be what is happening to that 70%. The land is almost secondary.

    • greg2213 said

      Hey Glenn,

      Thanks for dropping by. Just so you know, I’m quite aware of the percentages and what’s been said about the relevance of the US temp record. The point was shoddy records and possible manipulation of the data. My using ’34 as a time that was/wan’t/was/wasn’t warmer than ’98 was intended to point that out. The other point was that if ’34 really was warmer, then the AGW concept is dead. Note that since the US is said the be the gold standard here one can imply that the rest of the word’s temp systems are even worse off. Which basically makes them useless. Also, since Sat data only goes back about 30 years the surface record is all we have before that time.

      So even though you’re right about US/GLobal and the water I think the argument I made still holds.

      With the oceans the mass of water and the complex interplay of currents and heat transfer make it very difficult to pick out a reliable warming or cooling signal. We can pick out what’s warm/cool and get some ideas, but it’s tough to pick out that global cooling (or warming) trend.

      Also, the bajillions of bux the alarmist want to spend to spend to destroy our economies mitigate warming are based on the surface record and the hockey sticks that come from that record. So that surface station temp record becomes extremely important.

      The satellites are great, but since they don’t show a warming trend the alarmists would rather use something that does show that trend. Hence the fight over how much that record has been “adjusted” and how any declines have been hidden and how we can stop the “powers that want to be” from their destructive games.

  3. […] Models by James Hansen I updated my 1934 was/wasn’t post with a page comparing some graphs, by NASA’s James Hansen, that were done then with more […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: