# Global Temperature Graphs

The next step in the statistical forensics process is to breakdown the data in ways that reveal where the anomolous divergences are coming from. Here I am indulging in classical scientific reduction methodology by examining overall phenomena in terms of the sum of its parts.

The previous post in the series identified significant divergence in the distribution of the last digits of two global temperatrue data sets, from GISS (Pr<0.05) and CRU (Pr<0.01). Two other data sets based on satellite data were cleared of non-randomness, from RSS and UAH.

LuboÅ¡ Motl confirmed my results on GISS and CRU. Steve McIntyre initally disagreed, but then found an order of magnitude mistake in his calculations which he reported in a comment here. So there can be no doubt that the anomaly in distribution of digits in these datasets is real. This can be caused by many factors, only one of which is ‘manipulation’ of the data. How do we find the cause?

The graphs below show changes in chi-sq values (red) over the time scale of the GISS and CRU temperature series (blue) from 1880 to the present. I show them now to indicate where I am going. Sorry they are very basic but I am developing the code in php from scratch, so it can be used on the WikiChecks website. I used a 100 data point window, and plotted the significance of the dirvergence from a uniform over time (red).

The regions where the distribution of digits diverges is shown clearly, and will be the basis for more detailed examination.

GISS temperature and digit divergence.

CRU temperature and digit divergence.

## 0 thoughts on “Global Temperature Graphs”

1. Nathan says:

“Steve McIntyre initally disagreed, but then found an order of magnitude mistake in his calculations which he reported in a comment here”

Pretty sure he still disagrees. continue reading the thread and you find

“109
January 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The problem with this topic is that it only looks like a little crossword puzzle.

Everyone PLEASE stop worrying about whether it “matters” or about other adjustments. Let’s maintain some perspective here. I’m sorry – but I’m not interested right now in reviewing past little changes to GISS. There are lots of interesting issues with GISS, but I see no evidence that this is one and don’t want to piggyback this topic into larger issues as I don’t have time to refresh myself on GISS stuff right now.”

You need to audit your own claims 🙂

2. Nathan says:

“Steve McIntyre initally disagreed, but then found an order of magnitude mistake in his calculations which he reported in a comment here”

Pretty sure he still disagrees. continue reading the thread and you find

“109
January 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
The problem with this topic is that it only looks like a little crossword puzzle.

Everyone PLEASE stop worrying about whether it “matters” or about other adjustments. Let’s maintain some perspective here. I’m sorry – but I’m not interested right now in reviewing past little changes to GISS. There are lots of interesting issues with GISS, but I see no evidence that this is one and don’t want to piggyback this topic into larger issues as I don’t have time to refresh myself on GISS stuff right now.”

You need to audit your own claims 🙂

3. jae says:

I don’t understand this stuff much, but the graphs sure look intriguing. Do they show where the “maximum fixes” occur?

4. jae says:

I don’t understand this stuff much, but the graphs sure look intriguing. Do they show where the “maximum fixes” occur?

5. Anonymous says:

Nathan, I don’t know what you think I am claiming, but I think we can regard the statistical significance of distribution of digits in the CRU and GISS data is a fact anyone can check, and they can also see that RSS and UAH data do not diverge from random. You can also check the facts of Steve’s comment I referenced. I also stated on WUWT that I see little relevance of this issue to the science of AGW, which you can also check.

6. Nathan, I don’t know what you think I am claiming, but I think we can regard the statistical significance of distribution of digits in the CRU and GISS data is a fact anyone can check, and they can also see that RSS and UAH data do not diverge from random. You can also check the facts of Steve’s comment I referenced. I also stated on WUWT that I see little relevance of this issue to the science of AGW, which you can also check.

7. cohenite says:

David; you will be spoilt for choices in analysing GISS ‘corrections’ and ‘adjustments.’ Here is the classic US and global graphs before GISS ‘air-brushing’;

Here they are after;

Here is Bob Tisdale’s take on GISS;

And here is a particular site which has had the GISS makeover;

Raw data;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747310010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747310010&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

And the graph comparison;

8. cohenite says:

David; you will be spoilt for choices in analysing GISS ‘corrections’ and ‘adjustments.’ Here is the classic US and global graphs before GISS ‘air-brushing’;

Here they are after;

Here is Bob Tisdale’s take on GISS;

And here is a particular site which has had the GISS makeover;

Raw data;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747310010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425747310010&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

And the graph comparison;

9. Kim Michelsen says:

Have you tried Benfords Law for checking manipulated data?
/Kim

10. Kim Michelsen says:

Have you tried Benfords Law for checking manipulated data?
/Kim

11. Nathan says:

Kim,
My guess would be no he didn’t… Doesn’t serve his paradigm.

12. Nathan says:

Kim,
My guess would be no he didn’t… Doesn’t serve his paradigm.

13. Geoff Sherrington says:

Cohenite at #4,

I can’t make a link with Tisdale. All ok with the URL?

14. Geoff Sherrington says:

Cohenite at #4,

I can’t make a link with Tisdale. All ok with the URL?

15. Pingback: wynajem aut

16. Pingback: kliknij