Over at Watts Up With That, Anthony, posted some observations by Michelle of of ReadNSay who comments on this quote by Hansen:
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.â€
Michelle suggests the following interpretation:
To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them toâ€. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.
Quite honestly, I think Michelle is misinterpreting Hansen here.
I think to better understand what Hansen likely means, we must remember that due of the nature of climate, useful measurements often require decades of uninterrupted daily measurement. Moreover, measurements of this sort must be performed at many sites scattered all over the surface of the earth, in the ocean and in the upper atmosphere. Many of these measurements have no direct commercial or military use.
Given this situation, I think it likely that what James Hansen means is:
a) It’s very difficult and expensive to collect the type and quality of data required to precisely test models, theories or even just check projections.
b) It’s very difficult to convince funding agencies to fund the programs to take measurements and then maintain sustained funding for the periods required and
c) It’s difficult to obtain funding to ensure the data are properly handled, archived and made available for researchers.
Some measurements are more important to testing models than others. So, it is natural for Hansen to want to influence what types of measurements that are planned and funded. This is true even for measurements that do not fall under the GISS umbrella.
What Hansen says is probably a simple fact: It probably is more difficult to get the correct measurement programs funded and operating than to get funding for other things (like modeling.)
Update
I originally believed Michelle’s words were Anthony’s. Anthony corrected me; he was quoting Michelle.
Update 2
Jack suggested I ask Hansen what he meant. He says:
Lucia,
This sentence refers to satellite measurements. You could look at the report “Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks”, which is available from my office — but you could also find several papers that I wrote in the early 1990s if you go to www.giss.nasa.gov, then Publications, Authors, my name.
Jim Hansen
Here is the link to the government report Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks
The abstract reads:
A workshop on Long-Term Monitoring of Global Climate Forcings and Feedbacks was held February 3-4, 1992, at NASA`s Goddard Institute for Space Studies to discuss the measurements required to interpret long-term global temperature changes, to critique the proposed contributions of a series of small satellites (Climsat), and to identify needed complementary monitoring. The workshop concluded that long-term (several decades) of continuous monitoring of the major climate forcings and feedbacks is essential for understanding long-term climate change. Separate abstracts have been prepared for articles from this report.
I’m not sure Anthony read the quote in question carefully enough.
Hansen said:
“One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites . Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
Influencing the nature of measurements obtained from satellites seems like a reference to the great MSU debate, with all the fun of correcting for orbital decay, diurnal cycles, etc. Not to reignite an old battle, but raw satellite data is unquestionably “influenced” and adjusted far more than surface measurements to obtain surface temperature data.
Actually no that’s not my quote, that’s from Michelle, who wrote the original post that I referenced. I’ll make sure it is delineated better.
Thanks Anthony! I was looking for the author and I didn’t deconvolute which bits you said and which were quotes.
Whether Anthony wrote those words or not, it still seems rather ironic that a quote by Hansen bemoaning the difficulty of getting useful temperature data from satellite measurements was turned into an attack on the adjustments made to U.S. GISS surface station measurements.
Of course, we can interpret this statement in what ever direction we would like to. We don’t know what Hansen really meant. However, I beg to differ between “getting (i.e. obtaining) useful temperature data” and “influence the nature of the measurements obtained“
Zeke–
I can understand much of the criticism of the GISS method.
Adjusting measurements is something that make me queasy. I know it’s sometimes required for various reasons. Ideally, you fix your instruments.. but of course, this isn’t always possible. So, I also understand why Hansen “Hansenises” the data.
But whether or not adjusting data makes me queasy, that Hansen quote seems like he is saying something that is almost certainly entirely reasonable. Getting measurement programs funded is not easy. Getting good data is not easy.
Yup, it is REALLY hard to get and interpret that data, especially when you discard a LOT of it and randomly modify, er, ADJUST, most of the rest!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
kuhnkat: How exactly does Hansen “randomly modify” data?
Cogito–
In these large government projects, various research groups get together with people from funding agencies to discuss and prioritize measurements required to reduce uncertainty and increase understanding. In this situation, various scientists influence the nature of measurements. Hansen is probably referring to this process.
This is a difficult process for many reasons. (Some political at the human level etc.)
It’s important to understand that the issues of how the heck to deal with the imperfections in the historic and current surface measurements is not the whole ball of wax. (There are certainly odd features of Hansen’s method. The back-propagation in time of changes in temperature anomalies is one of the oddities. It would be nice to see older anomalies from say…. the 70s…. utterly and completely stable at some point.)
Zeke #9417 “Influencing the nature of measurements obtained from satellites seems like a reference to the great MSU debate, with all the fun of correcting for orbital decay, diurnal cycles, etc. Not to reignite an old battle, but raw satellite data is unquestionably “influenced†and adjusted far more than surface measurements to obtain surface temperature data.”
I didn’t read it that way. He isn’t saying he wants to influence the data but to influence what data is collected in the context, I would imagine, of a funding landscape in which not all data that might be collected is. He wants good data. You can’t knock him for that.
As someone whose scientific background was initially as a geologist and now as a materials engineer, this whole thing makes me wince.
The most important thing in all of this should be the reliability of the measured temperature, and so the first thing that should have happened after Hansen’s 1988 testimony, where global warming first came into the political arean, was the development of a sensible and reliable set of measurement stations where there was no need for further quality assessment and adjustment of the data (other than for instrumental drift that would be inevitably occur and be recorded during instrument calibration). I.e. point b in the list given above.
This data could have been tied into the existing network by running in parallel for a few years, but would have eliminated the problems of drop-out of stations as seriously compromises the high latitude readings around eastern Russia and some areas of Canada.
Unfortunately, the AGW proponents are mainly computer-oriented, so the money has gone elsewhere, into technology that is really of little benefit if we can’t have adequate confidence in the real world data that are put into it.
Two comments from my PhD supervisors:
1) There is no such thing as bad data, just bad interpretation
2) You can’t prove anything with models…At best model data can be shown to be consistent with reality, but even that doesn’t demonstrate that the model is right.
Instead of trying to guess what Hansen meant why not ask him directly?
Ian–
I agree that it would have been sensible for the world to have developed a much more reliable system of surface measurements with full spacial coverage that does not require corrections of any sort. But, I also think it’s an unfortunate reality that getting it funded and deployed would be difficult for many reasons.
We still don’t have such a worldwide system, do we? (Or if we do have , do we know we do?)
Jack… I guess I could ask him. I’m not sure Hansen wants to be contacted by any and every blogger!
The problem is models are sexy and produce neat graphs and predictions. Placing a bunch of thermometers in Siberia is simply not exciting.
Chad:
“kuhnkat: How exactly does Hansen “randomly modify†data?”
“Random” is probably not the appropriate word, but nobody seems to know WTF he is doing, especially outside the USA. See relevant posts on CA.
Ryan O–
Add to that that adding thermometers to Siberia doesn’t result in any individual publishing anything anytime soon. Who is to advocate support for deploying these things?
What strikes me is that Hansen talks about using satellite data – but he doesn’t. Instead he uses a faulty/incomplete system of ground based stations. And then he claims “global” coverage and one tenth degree accuracy from a system that can only provide partial coverage and one degree accuracy at best. What’s wrong with this picture.
I have a personal interest here because I spent over 40 years as a NASA contractor directly involved with the development of the science instruments and spacecraft used to provide data to UAH and RSS.
All–
I asked Hansen what he meant and added an update.
Lucia – Very true. And it’s too bad. Many of the denialist arguments rest on potentially faulty data. Some are probably legitimate to an extent; some probably arent. But without a good benchmark, you can’t tell.
.
Thanks for clearing up the Hansen remark. I had a hard time believing that he actually meant what Michelle said.
Lucia
I’ve no doubt that politically and economically it would have been difficult to agree on a sensible temperature monitoring system, and particularly one designed specifically for climate assessment rather than primarily weather measurement (perhaps should have been under the auspices of the IPCC right from its outset – make them the custodians of the data and data collection network). I suspect though it would have been cheaper than the funds spent on computer hardware and software development.
Ryan + Lucia
Yes, the cynical world of target-based science. Publication is far more important than quality, and things that look flash get the cash.
Now to digress…
the other thing that happens is that since the money follows to ‘hot’ topic, alot of research that doesn’t really bear any relation to it gets linked by tenuous statements in journal papers. As a geologist in the ealry 90s, this was always by linking your research area to extinction events. You only have to look at the Numbers Watch list of things linked to global warming to see this in action in this case
Ian–
I agree that any and all decisions to improve the climate monitoring system would have been great. But I disagree that it would be cheaper than modeling. Measurements are expensive.
On the funding and publication like: Of course! If you want funding, you can only get funding from those who have it. The only way to get it is to try to connect your research to their mandate. Some connections will be very strong and real; some tenuous. Some will be pure fiction!
Lucia, you are so kind and fair to Dr. Hansen. I wonder if he would respond in a similar manner if you had a post that could be interpreted in several ways. I suspect not.
I observe that Hansen did not really answer your question. A couple of sentences could have cleared it up. He just deflected and dismissed you.
Your responders are not as willing as you to give Dr. Hansen the benefit of the doubt because of the good doctor’s previous inflammatory comments and bad behavior.
Who, according to the doctor, is the next group that should be tried for Treason?
I think it is entirely appropriate to think the worst of the doctor. He earned it.
Each time Hansen does a fart are we going to discuss whether he did it deliberately and how it smelled?
Jim Owen –
What strikes me is that Hansen talks about using satellite data – but he doesn’t. Instead he uses a faulty/incomplete system of ground based stations. And then he claims “global†coverage and one tenth degree accuracy from a system that can only provide partial coverage and one degree accuracy at best.
I don’t know where you’ve got this impression from, Jim, but GISS does indeed employ satellite data in generating their analysis of SSTs:-
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I think that asking Hansen what he meant is a bit silly. The comment in question was highlighted because it was in the nature of a “Freudian slip”. If he revealed more than he intended with the original statement, asking for an explanation only gives him an opportunity to back and fill.
As for the quality of temperature measurements, Hansen’s defenders miss the mark. The horrible siting problems of most temperature sites in the US and around the world are unacceptable. The bizarre adjustment process is even worse.
First, if you want to establish that there is a crisis justifying trillions in costs to remediate, you better have damn good data. Crap that has been massaged in private doesn’t cut it.
Second, you have to be totally transparent and you have to enlist the best experts available in every relevant discipline. Hansen has failed to do either.
Finally, even if money for a perfect temperature monitoring system weren’t available, there is no excuse for the complete absence of any effort to clean up the worst siting disasters.
If there really is a crisis, one would expect those screaming warnings to act as if there were a crisis. Hansen doesn’t act like there’s a crisis.
Zeke,
I believe no one will argue with you that the Satellite datasets have their issues. However, regardless of these issues, I also believe most would agree that the Satellite dataset have better global coverage with up-to-date data as opposed to the Surface station datasets with their vast holes of coverage and incomplete data for the areas that they do cover. So when GISS or Hadley or NOAA comes out with a single GMST number, it is easy to understand the lack of confidence in the accuracy of that number. Given this as well, I do not believe your statement of “but raw satellite data is unquestionably “influenced†and adjusted far more than surface measurements to obtain surface temperature data.” one single bit.
Fred,
Satellite data may well provide a better record than surface temperature data (though I still have my doubts), and undoubtedly will be the primary source of temperature records in the future. You just have to bear in mind that Satellites have had a long and storied struggle to get accurate data. It was not even possible to create a surface temperature record from satellite data until 1992, and it went through major adjustments in both 1998 and 2005. While they now line up quite well with surface measurements, it may well be that further corrections are needed. I’ll definitely stand by my statement that the amount of adjustments needed to go from raw MSU data to the TLT temperature record far exceeds those needed to go from raw surface station data to a global mean surface temperature. There is also the ongoing problem that TLT doesn’t perfectly reflect surface temperatures, since it tends to capture a wide range of the troposphere.
Stan & Tom–
I think Hansen did answer my question. The answer isn’t too far off from what I thought it meant in a generic sense, and it turns out he was specifically thinking of influencing the decision to get certain specific things measured. He then linked to a report about it.
Chris–
Well… yes. If one blogger (Michelles) is going to pull a sentence out of Hansen’s bio and suggest a meaning that doesn’t make sense to other bloggers, they are going to comment.
Even if you think Hansen is the devil with “666” tatooed on the palm of his left hand, it wouldn’t make sense that he would actually post a sentence on his bio that translated to what Michelle thinks it means.
It’s one thing to expect Freudian slips in conversation, quickly written blog comments etc. It’s another to expect that a bio that is probably look at by several people would say what Michelle suggests!
For those who want to see how bad the GISTEMP code is (which the software GISS uses to “adjust” the surface temperatures and then create the regional and global averages), please download it from here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
Open up the tar ball and have look at the FORTRAN. I thought it couldn’t get any worse than Model E, but I was wrong…
Again, following official NASA/GISS practices, there is no coherent or comprehensive documentation of the software. Vague comments here and there, no equations, no nothing…
One can’t read what’s in Hansen’s heart, but I think he consciously meant it the way you’ve taken it. Unfortunately, I also think he believes that if the data does not conform to his expectations of AGW then the data MUST be wrong or just not correctly adjusted, hence he also unconsciously means it in the sense of the WUWT inference. It’s an all too human failing. Consider Lysenkoism in the USSR.
A few days ago I made the following suggestion for getting good surface measurements from surface stations, in a thread in CA.
If the surface project of Anthony finishes, which will take some time in checking over the world, and a respectable number of good stations is found, one could use the logic of polls for corrections, i.e.weighting by representative area, rather than urban etc corrections.
The ocean temperature maps show that we could have maybe five bands in latitude, and within those, have “ocean”, “mountain”. “desert”, “forest”,”steppes”, “urban”, “fields”, “marshland”, etc. and weight the results according to the percentage area each of these types have on the surface of the globe.
There will be a time dependence of the weights because of changes of land use, but no need for Urban Heat Island corrections and the results will be valid if the rules of statistics are adhered to.
anna v, Your suggestion would only multiply the required measuring points, wouldn’t it? You would still need geographically dispersed measurements. You just add another dimension to the grid, don’t you?
This is just a tempest in a teapot. Obviously Hansen was referring to influencing what data was obtained, rather than influencing the contents of the data, nothing wrong with that. Hansen of course has long since transitioned from a scientist seeking truth to an advocate that unerringly knows the truth, but that doesn’t mean that every statement he makes should be twisted into the most uncharitable connotation possible.
Anna, its a great idea but you are still not going to get a resolution of ±0.1°C. The microsite issues alone dominate and each measuring station needs to be characterised and calibrated if you want that level of resolution. I think maybe ±0.5°C is the best that could realistically be achieved. I think that everyone is beginning to realise the true scale of how much we don’t know about the climate. I know i am.
With regards to Hansen’s comment I too work in space satelites (propulsion) and it is often a choice of compromise between science and engineering to get the most reliable instrument on the satelite for the lowest power, weight and lifetime. A lot of the time this reduces the required resolution of the measurement in question so you have to fight to make sure the ‘right’ measurements are made.
I think you are very forgiving , Lucia. I found even more problematic this quote from the previous paragraph: ‘Since [college] it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.’
We find what we seek…
Lucia @ 9454
By your comment, I understand Dr. Hansen added the following to the NASA website: “I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.â€
See (below) the following reported at ICECAP. Apparently, Dr. Hansen has a good crystal ball (at least with respect to funding). To paraphrase: “Millions for modeling, but not one penny for data integrityâ€.
YOU READY FOR THE CLIMATE ARENA AND YOUR STIMULUS PAYMENT?
“Jan 26, 2009
Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million
President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources.
For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.†This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement. When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.†Whether or not another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item. What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.”
Brian–
I have to admit, I didn’t expect $140 million for climate modeling in an economic stimulus plan.
$140 million for climate modelling.
Perhaps Hansen could put the money toward getting one of those satellites he needs into space instead.
There are dozens and dozens of climate satellites in space already. We knew 25 years ago what they should be measuring (and Hansen would have been the main person to consult in what should be included in each satellite).
So the argument sounds good at first blush but it still does not fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Satellite_meteorology_and_remote_sensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Weather_satellites
Let me get this straight. The point of this post is to cry with Hansen over his funding problems? ok…
Bill Illis wrote:
“Perhaps Hansen could put the money toward getting one of those satellites he needs into space instead.”
$140 Mil won’t get him a satellite. These days you’ve gotta start at $1 Billion and up to get something he’d want off the ground. I worked the UARS program until 1992 – it cost $600 Mil and was the first NASA spacecraft in 15 years to get off the ground on time and under budget.
But then, he ignored the data from that program. Must have been too cheap for him.
Niels A Nielsen (Comment#9485) January 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“anna v, Your suggestion would only multiply the required measuring points, wouldn’t it? You would still need geographically dispersed measurements. You just add another dimension to the grid, don’t you?”
It will remove the arbitrary dimension of UHI corrections and introduce geographical weighting which can be quantified extremely well. Cities will be treated statistically on par with deserts and ocean.
MC (Comment#9487)
Even if the error will be 0.5 C it will be correct statistically and comparison/calibration with satellite data will have clearer meaning.
Correcting myself @ 9493
“Millions for modeling, but not one penny for data integrityâ€.
Anthony in Reply to comments @ WUWT reports in part:
“I read the line items seen here, the bill DID have money to upgrade the surface network with automated stations like this one I blogged about last spring:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/29/what-the-modernized-ushcn-will-look-like/
At about $20-30k each, they are quite a bargain for the value they produce.
here is the text of the bill on that section
“accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records†to the tune of $600 million, with $140 million going to climate modeling.”
If true, I am feeling a bit better.
Brian–
Thanks! It’s nice to read money is also going to measurements.
Yes Anna it will help but it won’t be the same resolution as all the IPCC trends. I would bet that it would not be possible to produce ‘random only’ errors and take multiple results to improve the mean value for each station so the whole measurement would be bounded within drifts and random errors etc. Basically staying on the conservative and realistic side of measurements.
Looks like Hansen’s just about had it
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Ah, the ever honest Lucia. Resisting the urge to chuck Hansen under the bus.
Unfortunately you are probably right, but the tires were right there!
I did not fault Hansen’s statement. Rightly or wrongly, I think the ambiguous statement most likely meant he would like to have input into deciding what phenomena/data satellites would measure — rather than trying to make do with data generated for purposes other than his own. Perfectly reasonable, I think.
Like most here, I am not convinced by some of Hansen’s forcefully presented AGW conclusions. That is a separate issue to me from ambiguous statements in minor contexts.
VG,
Gavin pretty effectively nips this one in the bud:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/langswitch_lang/ja#comment-110819
[Response: Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists†quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations. – gavin]
Zeke,
How does Gavin’s response in any way address the criticisms made by Dr. Theon?
Does Dr. Theon have any substantive criticisms?
He says:
“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.”
But offers no specifics and no evidence for this extraordinary claim. Until Theon ponies up some evidence, he’s just a conspiracy theorist. But in denial-land weasel words and vague insinuations of fraud are about all that’s left.
Boris, oms, Zeke, VG,
There is certainly a lot of heat here!
I did a google news search to try to find the original story.
I found and article by Lawrence Soloman at the national post:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/01/28/james-hansen-s-former-boss-on-james-hansen.aspx
That article contains two emails from Theon to Morano. (Moranos emails aren’t posted.)
* On the “Hansen’s Boss” issue: This is obviously being used in a sort of “claim to authority” way. Much of what Theon says is only an opinion, so I guess with regard to opinions, people sometimes care about someone’s background and position. Anyway, with regard to the “boss” issue, Theon appears to be answering a question posed by Morano. (Morano’s email isn’t posted.)
He tells Morano:
Lawrence Solomon describes Theon as “His former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon”
You can read the 1 paragraph article and 2 tacked on emails at:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/01/28/james-hansen-s-former-boss-on-james-hansen.aspx
I guess I’d say that Gavin’s response doesn’t actually disprove anything Theon said. Theon expressed some opinion in an email. He describes his background, which is one that might make him aware of NASA goings ons. He provides no particular evidence to prove his opinion is any more likely that the opinion of others at NASA. The second group will certainly contain loads of people who thinks no one manipulates climate data.
We seem to have “I think” “He thinks” dispute here.
It looks to me like Hansen is trying to give a reason as to why you cannot depend on satellite measurements. I get the feeling he is very confident in the surface record.
Regarding the Theon conversation:
As a retired NASA scientist, I have observed well intended NASA scientists manipulate data when it started to stray from their preconceived notions. Not for nefarious reasons. Rather, for reasons best explained by a Psychologist. Moreover, I think most humans are subject to that tendency — so not really a damnation of anyone or any group.
I also observed a NASA scientist with a strong personality (my boss) “guide” results to benefit the program. I think he did this totally unconsciously. I think he was totally sincere — a genuine patriot, as it were. He and Hansen remind me of each other.
I have seen “skeptical” NASA HQ folk provide funding despite their reservations.
Heck, it all rings true to me. I think people who have a hard time believing what he said… well they should rethink their doubts — because what is being described is “human nature”.
Allen63,
As a retired NASA scientist, I have observed well intended NASA scientists manipulate data when it started to stray from their preconceived notions.
Given that Theon is also a retired NASA scientist, do you think him also capable of manipulation? Do you think Morano is capable of manipulation? After all, the gloss on “supervisor” is clearly a manipulation, is it not? It’s self-evident from Theon’s own statement that he was not Hansen’s line manager.
I’d suggest that if scientists manipulate data, whether nefariously or not, their results will not stand the test of time. The manipulation of words in a political/propagandist context doesn’t need to face that test, unfortunately. The effect is achieved in its time, and the fact that there is evidence of past manipulation seems to count for nothing in the minds of those who like the message.
It would be a lot easier to believe the innocuous interpretation of the statement if the adjustments used by GISS were better documented and more understandable.
KuhnKat (Comment#9541) January 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
It would be a lot easier to believe the innocuous interpretation of the statement if the adjustments used by GISS were better documented and more understandable.
Have you read all of the documentation available on the GISS website? How documented do you expect it to be? The programing is available to you! By comparison, do you feel that UAH is fully documented and do you find their process understandable? I certainly don’t – I’ve no idea how to check out the adjustments that UAH have been making. And, of course, it is UAH that is the most consistently divergent data set, not GISS. Why are you suspicious of GISS rather than UAH?
Morano is a political hack that regularily distorts what people say on the topic of AGW. However, Morano’s distortions do not change his key point that there a wide range of opinions on this topic and people who try to use the ‘consensus’ as a way to shut down discussion are way out of line.
It should also come as no surprise that there are skeptics within NASA who disagree with Hansen. However, I suspect it is difficult to speak out about these views while one is actually working for NASA (After all, Hansen wants to put oil executives on trial for questioning his “science” – this clearly indicates opposing Hansen’s views within GISS would be career suicide at best).
Are you saying Hansen would fire his boss?
Boris wrote: “Does Dr. Theon have any substantive criticisms?”
All I am saying is that Gavin seems to have taken Dr. Theon’s comments to basically mean, “Your buddy is a jerk”, at which point he responded by saying, “Do I know you? Oh and by the way you’re a jerk.”
Doesn’t have any bearing on the content one way or the other. Gavin could have responded to the two substantive allegations, the first which is that inadequate treatment of subgrid processes renders the model output untrustworthy, and the second an accusation of bias by scientists in their treatment of data.
Boris,
I said “within GISS” not “within NASA” and Hansen is the big boss there. However, it worth noting that various alarmists called on Obama to fire Mike Griffin because of his views on AGW and he was fired.
Raven,
Political appointees rarely last between administrations, independent of any organized efforts on the behalf of the “alarmist lobby”.
oms (Comment#9547) January 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Gavin could have responded to the two substantive allegations, the first which is that inadequate treatment of subgrid processes renders the model output untrustworthy, and the second an accusation of bias by scientists in their treatment of data.
How’s he supposed to respond to an unspecified generalised slur? Don’t be daft! “I accuse you of having been dishonest at some time in your life and immediately demand a full account of all matters pertaining if you wish to defend yourself”. Can you not see how silly that is?
Pounding on Hansen is bloodsport for some, although admittedly many wounds are self-inflicited. Nevertheless, GISS seems to do a reasonable job in continental US temps, and we will learn more about its apparent skill with USA UHI once Anthony et. al. finishes the survey and starts running data. ROW is another story. I have heard the code is a legacy mess (Frank above). Maybe the blogosphere should build a collaborative to write its own instead of just throwing rocks. The raw data is out there for the taking, unlike HadCRU.
hswiseman–
I think JohnV is has written a code to try to come up with a temperature model based on the “good” surface stations after Anthony’s project is completed.
I agree with people that GISS’s method appears arcane, and that the fact that new data can cause changes in data that is years old is puzzling. I even find it amusing to see how far back a new months data propagates changes each month.
But that’s not the same as saying the data are nuts, insane, fiddeled etc. I don’t think there is a really good way to test whether GISS successfully removes UHI from ROW data. However, they do try.
FWIW: Hadcrut, not GISS, has the larger Land/Ocean temperature trend since 1900. It’s only recently that GISS is higher.
oms:
Yes. He could have addressed this but did not.
Simon Evans,
Therein lies the problem. How to separate truth from fiction when anyone could be “lying” — even if unconsciously. Even me, even you.
In Science, the separating is supposed to be done by your competitors (not your buddies). The burden of proof lies with you. You are supposed to supply them with all the data, all the assumptions, all the equations — and let them have at it. How far you take the process depends on how important it is to be “correct”. Given the international importance of AGW, I guess one could not go too far. No “burden” is too great to question “bearing” No amount of debate is too much.
But, at this point in time, the AGW camp says the “debate is over” (the debate is never over). Moreover, the AGW camp says big name contrarians should literally be locked up — while smaller fry should have their character assassinated. And, the assassinations are carried out for all to see.
Seems fishy to me.
Moreover, I’ve done a bit of study, a bit of math modeling of the physics, and generally come at AGW from 7 different directions (figuratively). For something that’s beyond debate, I see a lot to debate.
So, as I wrote, Theon’s comments ring true to me. But are they? Don’t know that for sure. They just seem a bit more plausible than AGW catastrophe theory.
Allen,
But, at this point in time, the AGW camp says the “debate is over†(the debate is never over).
I’m not sure who you think is saying that – I certainly wouldn’t! It does become a bit exhausting arguing about whether CO2 in the atmosphere has actually increased, or whether the global temperature has increased, but the science is certainly not ‘over’, and never will be.
Moreover, the AGW camp says big name contrarians should literally be locked up
Hansen has opined that in repect of his assertion that there are those who are cynically seeking to distort the debate. If he’s right then he has a point, if he’s wrong then he’s wrong. Time will maybe tell.
— while smaller fry should have their character assassinated. And, the assassinations are carried out for all to see.
Well, I’m quite puzzled. It seems to me that the concerted attempts at character assassination have been against Mann and Hansen. I do think it’s entirely reasonable to examine, say, Theon’s claims if he has appealed to his own authority in presenting a statement which frankly accuses other scientists of fraud. It is not ad himinem to check up on the claims someone has made.
I agree with you that there is plenty to debate, and so it should be. I would be happy to see no attacks upon character from either side, and only to see debate of the science. This ‘story’ is clearly a character attack, it seems to me.
Allen63 (Comment#9555) January 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm,
nitpick: You can’t unconsciously lie even if you put scare quotes around it. The definition of lie includes intent to deceive.
What you say may be incorrect, but if you don’t know it’s incorrect you are not lying.
Allen63–
The main problem I have with “The Debate is over” language (and this has been said) is this: Which debate is over?
Certainly there are things that nearly everyone agrees on. But there are other matters people debate. So unless someone defines a specific idea or statement, as “THE” debate, we can’t ever say whether or not “THE” debate is over.
I agree with Dewitt (and evidently George Costanza): You can’t unintentionally lie. You can say something false. It can even say two mutually inconsistent things. But if you believe what you say is true, it’s not a lie. We have lots of words in English. Some untruths are lies. But not all untruths are lies.
I’m pondering whether or not a truthful statement can be a lie. I think it sort of can. If it’s said in a way that misleads, I think it fits definition 2 above.
Lucia,
I think the problem is that people tend to get so caught up in the ideological conflict over climate change that there aren’t necessarily “things that nearly everyone agrees on”. You can see this on both sides, be it the recent Eric/Spencer Antarctica imbroglio over at RC or Roy Spencer’s asinine speculation in the blogosphere that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are not anthropogenic.
While there may be a great deal of agreement in the peer reviewed literature on some basic concepts (e.g. radiative forcing of GHGs, the physics of the greenhouse effect, anthropogenic CO2, etc.), I imagine if I tried to recite these things over in the comment threads at Anthony’s place I would find little agreement. I imagine that even here Jae, VG, and others will vehemently disagree about my consensus points.
Perhaps it would be a useful attempt to try and find a common ground: what we can all agree upon with high certainty, what we are reasonably confident of, and what we still disagree vehemently on. A little bit of common ground would go a long way toward making climate change discussions more civilized!
lucia (Comment#9599)
Sure it can. Consider a lie by omission. The actual statement may be true but the omitted information may make the statement intentionally misleading.
Consider an AGW proponent: “This is the tenth warmest year in the record” (But the temps have been decining for the last ten years)
Or Skeptic: “This is the eighth coolest year of the century! (but it’s warmer than all of the last century).
Both true and both don’t tell the truth because they hide information.
Zeke–
It would be useful to find common ground– if not with groups at least individuals. I was trying to do that to some extent with ‘…’ asking some questions to figure out whether his issue is with radiative physics, feedbacks, models etc.
But yes, at some blogs you may find people who would be unwilling to conceded things in favor of AGW related to that 99.9% of scientists agree. At other blogs you will find people who vitriolically insist ‘everyone’ agrees on some alarming AGW issue that has been suggested by one research group in one paper.
I it is impossible to figure out where some individuals stand on even the tiniest issue. They basically won’t answer. (It’s not even an issue of being inconsistent or confusing. They just won’t answer.)
I notice this on both sides. Some people will absolutely not agree on 2+2=4 if they thought admitting that fact might undermine their position. (Maybe me too. Self perception can be an odd thing.)
It would be sometimes be nice if we could figure out where everyone stood. But… alas… no.
A problem with seeking common ground is that (as a ‘warmer’!) one finds oneself disputing with those who hold mutually inconsistent views. One thinks “it’s all the sun”, another that “it’s volcanoes”, etc. How can one find common ground with those who do not have common ground between themselves? The common purpose is to oppose AGW theory and, frankly, anything goes. You might think you’ve agreed on the common ground that CO2 concentration has risen this past century, then someone pops up to say that Ernst-Georg Beck says otherwise. It becomes impossible!
Simon Evans,
I had to google “Ernst-Georg Beck”!
It is true that those who think 20th century warming do not all agree on the cause of that warming.
Out of curiosity, does anyone currently suggest volcanos fully explain the majority of warming over the 20th century?
I think Zeke is suggesting at least figuring out where the divergences occur. For example, in some cases we might just like to know:
a) Do you believe CO2 rose over the 20th century? (Yes/ No)
b) If yes, was this caused by burning fossil fuels? (Yes/No)
c) If the answer to (a) is yes, do you believe, all other things being equal, this would lead to at least some warming?
d) If the answer to (a) is yes, do you think it could lead to measureable warming.
And so on. I’ve intentionally left off “maybe”. In principle, the correct answer for anything and everything is “maybe”. But to get a useful result, We would want people to just say whether they though “yes” or “no” was more likely correct.
Collectively, we’ll probably get some yes and nos on each question. But one might discover where the issues are.
Quite a few of my readers are “Luke warmer”, which is to say, they would likely answer yes to a-d. But if asked “Do you think projections are biased high?” they’d say “Yes. They probably are biased high.” On the other hand there are people who think projections are biased low. Also, some of my readers would answer no to a-d above. (And I think at least one would change the subject on every one of them.)
In mythology the Sidhe never lie, but you still have to be very careful in interpreting anything they say. In fiction we have in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series (the twelfth and final book to be published posthumously from his notes and unfinished ms this year) the Aes Sedai who are compelled by a magical oath to speak no word that isn’t true and the same goes for them too because the enforcement of the oath is very literal and doesn’t care if the listener misinterprets what they hear.
Re: the debate is over.
I think when Gore and et al make this claim, they are not talking about the scientific debate and, for instance, the work being done to narrow the likely range of climate sensitivity. But I’m not sure what exactly the statement is supposed to mean.
That said, I would argue that we have enough evidence to conclude that it is quite likely that AGW will be a serious problem for our civilization. Yes, there are uncertainties which could change the degree of the problem, but there is a solid enough body of evidence that we can begin to work on finding the best solution(s).
I think the “debate is over” claim is shorthand for this view. Even skeptics must admit that AGW could be a serious problem, just as I admit that there is a chance that AGW will have a more limited impact.
Boris (Free TCO!!!)
To some extent, I think it means “This is politician speak, and I’m going to try to create a snappy slogan.” It’s sort of like “Where’s the beef!”, “Yes We Can” or “a thousand points of light”. Slogans are always ambiguous. Because supporters can read in what they like, t he ambiguity can be useful. By the same token, slogans can be divisive.
Unfortunately, the slogan “The debate is over” has been divisive likely because it can easily be read to as “I’m right. You are wrong, Just STFU!”
Unfortunately, Gore and whoever is “helping” him communicate have team ears.
Boris (Free TCO!!!)
To some extent, I think it means “This is politician speak, and I’m going to try to create a snappy slogan.” It’s sort of like “Where’s the beef!”, “Yes We Can” or “a thousand points of light”. Slogans are always ambiguous. Because supporters can read in what they like, t he ambiguity can be useful. By the same token, slogans can be divisive.
Unfortunately, the slogan “The debate is over” has been divisive likely because it can easily be read as “I’m right. You are wrong, Just STFU!”
Unfortunately, Gore and whoever is “helping” him communicate have tin ears.
Boris:
.
Agree.
.
.
Strongly disagree – hence, in my opinion, at least, the debate is not over. I do not feel that there is enough evidence that AGW is of a level that requires intervention to allocate significant resources to finding “solutions” – resources which may be better utilized elsewhere.
.
If “the debate is over” truly is shorthand for that view (and I agree with you about it being shorthand for that) then I would argue that the debate is far from over.
But, Ryan, the fact that you are not personally convinced is irrelevant.
A large majority of experts in the field have come to the conclusions I stated above. The consensus is further established by looking at the literature and reading the IPCC reports. The policy discussion for government should be (and thankfully is) toward possible solutions. It is poor policy to ignore the majority of experts on an issue.
Boris–
The problem in your comment is the use of “the” with “consensus”. The IPCC report is a consensus on the specific topics addressed in the report and the consensus exists amount the sorts of people involved directly in writing the report.
This does not automatically turn the IPCC view into a consensus of popular opinion. So, while the IPCC report represents consensus is an important and informed sub-group, it doesn’t necessarily represent “the” consensus in the sense of being accepted by the majority of people everywhere.
Now, I’ll admit that some may wish to believe the consensus of the sub-population of people who write IPCC reports is all that matters. They may wish to believe gaining the consensus by everyone everywhere doesn’t matter. However, that wish is foolish.
The consensus of the broad population on individual subjects matters in a representative democracy.
Notwithstanding what the IPCC reports say, there is some evidence to suggest that what you describe as “the consensus” may not be the consensus of the broader population.
You need to recognize this if you wish to persuade those who do not accept the IPCC consensus to accept the IPCC view as a guide to action. Simply telling people that it’s “the consensus” with no caveats has not been working. It hasn’t been working because it’s not an argument people accept. In many ways, it shares the defects of the slogan “The Debate Is Over”.
The fact that I am not personally convinced is quite relevant if I have any ability to influence policy. I do not have such ability except via voting, so your comment is in this case rather true. 🙂
.
AFA “large majority” goes . . . I do wonder where you get that and if you can quantify said “large majority”. Anecdotal, but more Canadian scientists petitioned the Canadian government not to participate in the Kyoto treaty than there were signatories (from all nations) on AR4. (I do not know how many of those Canadian scientists were climate scientists.)
.
And the idea of “consensus” has no place in science.
RyanO–
There is a place for consensus in science. The difficulty is that some advocating for action to handle AGW often give an incorrect impression about both the role of consensus in science and the state of consensus on what particular topics.
Even if you read the IPCC document, you can see signs that many topics in AGW are not pinned down. Moreover, the words of the document read in plain english sometimes do not square with the impression one develops at some of the more vocal climate blogs or from some climate activists.
Moreover, the science cannot entirely tell us which actions are most appropriate. I would like to see some positive action to reduce CO2 emissions. But, the actions I think best suited to success are not necessarily the same as those others favor.
I want to nuclear production encouraged, and think it’s key. I would like to see clean coal. I would also like to see alternative energy promoted– but not to the exclusion of the other two. I like conservation. I think we can achieve a lot by conserving more–but there are limits to what we can achieve with conservation. Like many, I notice some environmental groups blocking windfarms. What’s with that?
Clearly, all these things, and more, need to be on the table. In anycase, Is suspect that some who don’t believe GW is caused by A might be more willing to curb CO2 if they knew the baseload would be replaced by nuclear which certainly can provide base load rather than the more uncertain promise of distributed wind and solar farms with research into how to get all that power to the consumers.)
It’s difficult to quantify, but there are a wide range of surveys, statements and reviews of literature that support this conclusion.
And, once again, I’m not arguing anything about science and consensus, I’m arguing about policy and consensus.
Lucia,
Yes, I was referring to the scientific consensus on AGW. In my experience, most lay persons who do not accept AGW do so because they believe one of the many bogus arguments (e.g. water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, the sun is hot, so it must be the cause of warming.)
Every scientific organization that studies the climate has issued a statement that AGW is real and a concern for the future. I think if this fact were more well known, that public opinion would follow.
The arguments (bogus or not) come after the fact. It’s a lack of trust of the politicians and politically oriented scientists based on past history, from the “Population Bomb” to “Nuclear Winter” and on and on. When has one of these “crises” resulted in a call for less government and more freedom, just more central control?
And who elected Gore as debate moderator?
Can the the truth be a lie? Anthony Trollope says somewhere, “Though it was a true statement it was certainly a lie for it was intended to deceive”. He said lots of good things.
Lucia, Boris:
.
I disagree that there is any place in science for a “consensus”. A theory is either right or wrong. Consensus has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the scientists believe that the medium for light propagation is a luminiferous aether. Their belief does not make it so.
.
The fact that a majority of climate scientists believe AGW is real does not remove the need to make falsifiable predictions; it does not remove the responsibility to attempt to falsify those predictions; it does not remove the burden of proof from those who make predictions; it does not remove the ability to investigate alternative explanations or theories. The word “consensus” should be stricken from the scientific lexicon.
.
But you guys are exactly right in that consensus matters for policy. Unless you live in a dictatorship, consensus is what drives policy decisions. I understand what you are saying about policymakers needing to rely on the judgment of a “consensus” of scientists, and I also agree that the “majority” of scientists believe AGW is something to be concerned about.
.
That does not mean, however, that the majority believe that AGW will be catastrophic if not stopped, and it does not mean that the majority also agrees with some of the more draconian measures (i.e. carbon taxes) currently on the table. In fact, if you forced me to take a stand, I would say that I believe that AGW is real and that humankind should do things to limit the impact of our energy generation on the environment.
.
But that is a very different statement from being convinced that AGW will result in catastrophic results if not stopped now.
.
I don’t advocate doing nothing – far from it. I am a fan of nuclear power. I am a fan of clean coal. I am a fan of incentives for businesses and homeowners to supplement their power requirements with renewable sources (wind, solar, microhydro). I am a fan of conservation. Many of these things can result in a net reduction in expenditures on energy – so they have an ancillary financial benefit.
.
What I am not a fan of is the direction I see policymakers heading: carbon taxes, regulating CO2 as a hazardous substance, spending trillions on massive wind farms, etc. I strongly feel that the current state of the science does not justify this amount of expenditure on things that have arguably small returns.
.
Do I think AGW is real? Yep. What I am skeptical of are the numerical predictions that are driving policy action.
.
A consensus that AGW is real is not a valid proxy for the statement that there is a “consensus on the degree of future warming” as justification for policy actions.
RyanO–
It is true that either certain physical principle are true or they are not. However, science not list of physical principles that are correct. Science is a process for determining how the physical universe works. There is a role for consensus in the process.
That said, while the consensus has a role, it is also that the consensus can be wrong. It has been in the past; it will be again. Sometimes it’s a little wrong; sometimes is horribly wrong. The process has a tendency to incrementally improve our knowledge of how things really work. But, it’s equally obvious the physical reality will not bend to the will of any consensus no matter how strongly held their beliefs.
It’s also a bit obvious that when science touches on politics, some resort to being vague about the precise points on which there is strong consensus, with the result that people end up arguing past each other.
Other than that: pretty much with what you said.
Ryan O,
If Project Steve taught us anything, its that lists of individual scientists who support or oppose a particular concept are somewhat meaningless:
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
I’ve always been a fan of Wikipedia’s approach of showing scientific consensus through the statements of scientific bodies and societies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Its a broad brush, of course, and does not tell you the views of the majority of scientists on any given detail, just the basics I mentioned earlier.
Zeke: I don’t believe in lists, either . . . hence the “anecdotal” caveat in front of the Canada example. I also don’t argue that there is a general scientific consensus that AGW is real.
.
Lucia: To borrow one of your phrases, I think you and I may be talking past each other a bit. When I say “consensus” has no place in science I mean that the existence or nonexistence of a consensus on a claim cannot be used to evaluate the veracity of the claim. The claim stands or falls on the basis of objective evidence, not consensus. In that respect, perhaps the difference is merely that I am using a more narrow definition of “science” than you and Boris.
.
Regardless, I think you might agree with the following: Using the scientific “consensus” is used as a proxy for objective evidence when evaluating AGW claims is distinctly unscientific.
Ryan O,
The usability of the consensus argument is highly dependent on the situation. Going to a blog devoted to discussing climate science and policy and using an appeal to authority as a claim for anything is a good way to get yelled at. That said, if I had a friend with no background in science who wanted to know about climate change, I would explain the basic physics involved and the remaining uncertainties, and use the consensus among scientific bodies as a way to buttress my argument. In an ideal world, everyone would go out and do their own research on every subject they want to form an opinion about. In reality, people have little enough time as it is, and many areas of science require a level of specialized knowledge and statistical aptitude that are time-consuming to obtain.
.
The appeal to consensus is also a way to steer people toward information that has been more rigorously verified. For example, it allows me to give a reason why my position that anthropogenic GHGs have a significant role in observed surface warming is more valid than, say, the arguments my friend saw over at Junkscience that water vapor is 96 percent of the greenhouse effect and that volcanoes emit far more CO2 than humans.
.
Granted, the ideal solution is to get my friend a seat in an intro geophysics class at the local university, but I’m not sure that would work out too well in practice. :p
I don’t think there is much question Hansen and GISS and Jones and the Hadley Centre have “influenced” the temperature trend of the last 130 years.
All it takes is a study that says the Time of Observation Bias must be adjusted for. Publish it in Nature (which is more than accommodating). Throw in a few formulas showing the effect and then, viola, someone who reports to Hansen and Jones then develops a new program that sorts through all the historic temperature records and increases 70% of them by 0.4C over time.
The paper provides the justification and the programmer/adjuster leans a little one way on the assumptions used in adjusting each individual historic record and, viola, the trend has magically increased by 0.3C per century.
Rinse, repeat, and we have global warming (and it is fully justifiable in the literature).
It is not until the satellite observations come along that this practise has to slow down a little so as to not differentiate too much from the satellite temps post-1979.
Any records pre-1979 are still fair game, of course, so we just adjust the old records instead.
There is little doubt in my mind this has occurred.
Zeke,
The problem with the appeal to authority is it presumes that the “authorities” are infalliable and any suggestion that they may be wrong and/or exagerrating the issue is dismissed as a conspiracy theory/tobbaco argument. When faced with blind acceptance of the opinion of “authority” one is reduced to debating whether the “authorities” could be wrong instead of the actual scientific arguments.
What this debate needs is a recognition that well-informed non-climate scientists have opinions worth taking seriously and they cannot be dismissed because the don’t agree with the “consensus” opinion.
I wasn’t going so far as to say that the appeal to authority is an invalid way for policymakers to proceed. It’s not. They don’t have expertise in these fields, so they need to take advice from somebody. While “appeal to authority” in and of itself is a logical fallacy, it is pragmatically necessary. So I don’t feel Zeke is off-base with his example. Pragmatically, there’s no other way to do it.
.
My objection is not that policymakers do this (they really have no other choice), it is that scientists use this when making or rebutting claims. Stochastic models that reproduce the historical record without (or with a lower level of) AGW? Balderdash. They don’t fit the consensus.
.
One thing Zeke did say that I take exception to was the implication that AGW has been rigorously verified. Perhaps this is a matter of definition, but I do not consider something “rigorously verified” until it has passed a test of mutual exclusivity. AGW predictions (like the IPCC ones) have yet to do that, and there are still many underlying questions about the integrity/quality of the data and the physics in the models that utilize the data.
.
Hence this thread. 🙂
Also, I just read my last sentence in #9659 and realized that it made no sense whatsoever. Objective evidence that often my thoughts are not well-formed. 🙂 The sentence should have read:
.
Using “consensus†as a proxy for objective evidence when evaluating the veracity of AGW claims is distinctly unscientific.
Bill Illis,
All it takes is a study that says the Time of Observation Bias must be adjusted for. Publish it in Nature (which is more than accommodating). Throw in a few formulas showing the effect and then, viola, someone who reports to Hansen and Jones then develops a new program that sorts through all the historic temperature records and increases 70% of them by 0.4C over time.
…Rinse, repeat, and we have global warming (and it is fully justifiable in the literature).
How do you arrive at these figures? Can you explain them please? I presume that you are talking about global figures (since you reference global warming) and specifically about adjustments applied by Hansen/GISS (or Jones) rather than by USHCN?