GW NASA Study - Oops?

[KC4RAN]

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. #1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. "

Source:Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

[kb2vxa]

They'll carry on with creative accounting as long as it suits the current agenda, I pay them no mind.

[KC4RAN]

I wonder how many peer-reviewed journals will now post follow-up information to all the papers that have been published that reference this (now-incorrect) data?

Isn't that what the peer review process is supposed to be all about? Don't the publishers of the papers have a responsbility to at least update their papers and re-justify their conclusions in light of this changing data?

[n2ize]

Bear in mind that the discrepancy was NOT due to a Y2K bug as some have reported. Rather it was due to a change that was made in the sources of temperature data that just so happened to occur in 2000 causing many to assume it was due to the infamous (and largely overinflated) Y2K software bug.

All in all the change in the data is not that significant in as far as scientific conclusions go. In other words it hasn't resulted in earth shattering groiundbreaking changes that overturn climate research and any notable differences are limited to North America. For example, the difference makes 1934 slightly hotter than 2005 with respect to North America.. But globally 2005 still remains the hottest year.

What will be changed in peer reviwed studies depends on the study itself and to what degree this affects the study. I am sure that some studies will be updated.

A good discussion can be read here.


Linque (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)

[kg4rqa]

NASA: Not A Single Accomplishment.............Your tax dollars at work, folks!! NOT http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[KI4ITV]

Reporting stations need to be more tightly regulated if we are going to legislate based on the results.
Improperly placed/installed weather stations reporting incorrect data are a real problem and probably more common than those set up properly.
Go to Weather Underground and check the local reporting stations in your area. I know the ones in this area do not seem to jive with each other or the topography, making their data suspect.

[WF7A]

The answer:

One NASA climatologist to the other: "Wait a sec--were all the temperatures in our study Fahrenheit or Celsius?"

"D'oh!"

[KC4RAN]

Time-wise, if you choose to only look at the global temperature over a short period of history (from a geologic perspective), then yes, it looks like we're getting warmer.

But if you look at a longer view of the earth, the story the GWers don't want you to know is that the earth doesn't normally have glaciers on it. For the majority of the earth's history, it's been significantly warmer than it is now.

Of course, that doesn't further the 'control pollution - industry is bad' mantra that is the real underpinning of the AGW crowd. It isn't the warming itself that is the focus of attack. It is the pollution that contributes to the warming. If the warming was a problem, they would be demanding that we attack the easiest and most direct short-term contributors to surface warming.

They'd be going after your air conditioner. Think about all the heat that thing puts off?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Aug. 12 2007,13:02)]Time-wise, if you choose to only look at the global temperature over a short period of history (from a geologic perspective), then yes, it looks like we're getting warmer.

But if you look at a longer view of the earth, the story the GWers don't want you to know is that the earth doesn't normally have glaciers on it. For the majority of the earth's history, it's been significantly warmer than it is now.

Of course, that doesn't further the 'control pollution - industry is bad' mantra that is the real underpinning of the AGW crowd. It isn't the warming itself that is the focus of attack. It is the pollution that contributes to the warming. If the warming was a problem, they would be demanding that we attack the easiest and most direct short-term contributors to surface warming.

They'd be going after your air conditioner. Think about all the heat that thing puts off?
Quote[/b] ]
But if you look at a longer view of the earth, the story the GWers don't want you to know is that the earth doesn't normally have glaciers on it. For the majority of the earth's history, it's been significantly warmer than it is now.



The world has seen many climate variations in the past. Indeed there were times, 55 million years ago, when the Arctic had a more tropical climate and there was probably no ice at all. There are long records of temperature and CO2 from ice cores and other sources. During the past 500,000 years, the Earth has experienced a series of ice ages with ice sheets covering large portions of the northern hemisphere. These changes are probably driven by variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth at different latitudes. The CO2 levels also change during the ice ages, acting as one of many complex feedbacks on the solar-induced variations. What is happening now is different as humans are adding greenhouse gases. The natural variations continue but their combined effect over the last 50 years is very small.


In other words what is happening now hasn't been done before. Yes, natural events do change climate, that is well documented by the so called "GW'ers". Essentially the probability is low that the departure we're seeing today over the short time frame is mostly due to natural fluctuations.


Quote[/b] ]
Of course, that doesn't further the 'control pollution - industry is bad' mantra that is the real underpinning of the AGW crowd. It isn't the warming itself that is the focus of attack. It is the pollution that contributes to the warming. If the warming was a problem, they would be demanding that we attack the easiest and most direct short-term contributors to surface warming.


And if pollution contributes to the warming then pollution is a cause and you would logically want to minimize it. Yes, we if could magically dump lots of ice cubes everywhere and cool the surface without dealing with pollutants but once the ice melted we'd have the same problkem again or maybe worst.

If you have a severe pain in your mouth you could simply treat the pain with lots of painkillers taken throughout the day or, you could have the rotting and infected tooth that is causing the pain fixed or removed. Which would make more sense ?

Besides, is cleaner air and cleaner water that objectionable to you ? Even if global warming was proved to be a fabricated myth I still think it would make sense to strive to reduce pollution.

[KC4RAN]

Why is it that no AGW proponent wants to show a graph of the earth's average temperature farther back than 500,000 years ago?

And no, if we're in an abnormally cool period, I see no reason at all to try to fight the inevitable... especially considering the junk science that is being (mis)quoted as some sort of evidence for AGW.

The world is getting warmer... back to more 'normal' long-term temperatures. The AGW crowd would try to convince you that me watering my lawn is contributing to the flooding of post-Katrina neighborhoods in NO.

And if I'm an 11-year-old and I'm losing a molar tooth, I could run and jump and scream and say that I'm dying because my teeth are falling out oh my god what is wrong with me. Or I could look at the bigger picture and maybe realize that it is an inevitable thing that has happened to other people, and that it will happen to me as my permanent teeth come in.

But hey, those windmills are just over the hill. Your squire awaits...

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Aug. 12 2007,17:09)]Why is it that no AGW proponent wants to show a graph of the earth's average temperature farther back than 500,000 years ago?

And no, if we're in an abnormally cool period, I see no reason at all to try to fight the inevitable... especially considering the junk science that is being (mis)quoted as some sort of evidence for AGW.

The world is getting warmer... back to more 'normal' long-term temperatures. The AGW crowd would try to convince you that me watering my lawn is contributing to the flooding of post-Katrina neighborhoods in NO.

And if I'm an 11-year-old and I'm losing a molar tooth, I could run and jump and scream and say that I'm dying because my teeth are falling out oh my god what is wrong with me. Or I could look at the bigger picture and maybe realize that it is an inevitable thing that has happened to other people, and that it will happen to me as my permanent teeth come in.

But hey, those windmills are just over the hill. Your squire awaits...
Thats precisely what was addressed in the prior posting. Even if we find a stretch in time where there was no ice in the arctic it does not mean that the same cause is the probable cause of the anomalies we are measuring today.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,18:38)]Thats precisely what was addressed in the prior posting. Even if we find a stretch in time where there was no ice in the arctic it does not mean that the same cause is the probable cause of the anomalies we are measuring today.
"Stretch in time"... you mean, the majority of the earth's geologic history?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Aug. 12 2007,18:06)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,18:38)]Thats precisely what was addressed in the prior posting. Even if we find a stretch in time where there was no ice in the arctic it does not mean that the same cause is the probable cause of the anomalies we are measuring today.
"Stretch in time"... you mean, the majority of the earth's geologic history?
Again, explain what caused the earth to be hotter than it is now and explain how the same phenomenon that made if hot a million or more years ago is the same phenomenon that is heating it up again some one million years later only in a miniscule fraction of the time. When you accomplish that and you show that the probability is high that that is the cause of present day changes rather than increased CO2 via viable scientific argument then I'll be all ears. Till then I won't hold my breath.

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,22:16)]Again, explain what caused the earth to be hotter than it is now and explain how the same phenomenon that made if hot a million or more years ago is the same phenomenon that is heating it up again some one million years later only in a miniscule fraction of the time. When you accomplish that and you show that the probability is high that that is the cause of present day changes rather than increased CO2 via viable scientific argument then I'll be all ears. Till then I won't hold my breath.
Uhm . . . gee. The Scientific Method is not your forte, eh??

Just a wild guess.

Lemme get this right, now. I certainly don't want some lib'rul lune screaming I'm making unfair assumptions.

For millions of years, we've seen global warming and cooling. Untold times in the past, the Earth's temperature has warmed, then cooled, then warmed again.

Nevertheless, you demand proof that the current warming trend is NOT due to man!!

Well, silly 'ol me might suggest that given we have seen multiple episodes of warming and cooling in the past, it might be YOUR duty to show the current warming trend is due SOLELY to man and not the many factors that have led to global climate change in the past.

If you can, of course. I won't hold my breath.

[WA3WDR]

Yes, variations of solar radiance have affected earth temperature. And up until the late 20th century, the correlation seems to be pretty good.

But how is the abnormal increase in earth temperature beginning in the late 20th century explained?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xsolar.htm

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (WA3WDR @ Aug. 11 2007,22:36)]But how is the abnormal increase in earth temperature beginning in the late 20th century explained?
Silly, don't you even know that the RISE in temperature in the 20th Century PRECEDED the industrial output of CO2??

HOW CAN THIS BE???

I'm sure the anti-industrialists on Venus are up in arms over this!!

[KC4RAN]

"Miniscule fraction of the time"... that would be sorta difficult, since we really have no idea that the current warming trend is actually abnormal. That's due to the fact that we only have "relatively" detailed data for the past 200-300 years, and past that you have to rely on inferred data instead of directly recorded data.

Problem is, the further you go back, the less finely detailed the inferred data becomes. You can't look back 50,000 years and get +/- 5 year accuracy with inferred data. You might get +/- 50... meaning that the finest data point you can determine will be at least 50 years from the next one. You can't get year-by-year temperatures for 65 million years ago.

Yet, people who are proponents of AGW would have you believe that scientists are able to see with +/- 5 year precision back that far, since they're saying stuff like that the current warming trend is "unprecedented"... when they actually mean "unprecedented as far back as we have data that is detailed enough to record spans of time this short". But in reality the actual temperature is nowhere near "unprecedented", nor is the CO2 concentration.

And if you also listen to the sound bites from the AGW crowd, they'll have you believing that as CO2 goes up so many points, temperature rises in a direct, agressive and linear relationship. Except back then, CO2 concentrations were up over 1000 ppm, and one would think that at nearly 3 times current CO2 levels, the earth would have been 40 billion degrees or something.

CO2 accounts for about 3.5% of the 'heat capacity' of the atmosphere, according to some estimates. Water vapor, on the other hand, is placed at somewhere above 70%... yet you don't hear the AGW crowd clamoring for water park bans or prohibition on lawn watering?

So maybe it isn't actually the "Global Warming" that is the real target? Maybe it's been the pollution all along?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Aug. 12 2007,19:28)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,22:16)]Again, explain what caused the earth to be hotter than it is now and explain how the same phenomenon that made if hot a million or more years ago is the same phenomenon that is heating it up again some one million years later #only in a miniscule fraction of the time. When you accomplish that and you show that the probability is high that that is the cause of present day changes rather than increased CO2 via #viable scientific argument then I'll be all ears. Till then I won't hold my breath.
Uhm . . . gee. #The Scientific Method is not your forte, eh??

Just a wild guess.

Lemme get this right, now. #I certainly don't want some lib'rul lune screaming I'm making unfair assumptions.

For millions of years, we've seen global warming and cooling. Untold times in the past, the Earth's temperature has warmed, then cooled, then warmed again.

Nevertheless, you demand proof that the current warming trend is NOT due to man!!

Well, silly 'ol me might suggest that given we have seen multiple episodes of warming and cooling in the past, it might be YOUR duty to show the current warming trend is due SOLELY to man and not the many factors that have led to global climate change in the past. #

If you can, of course. #I won't hold my breath.
Quote[/b] ]
Uhm . . . gee. #The Scientific Method is not your forte, eh??


Nope, science was always my weakest subject. I just don't get it. And I'm even worst when it comes to math. I still can't figure out what "2x = 4" is. I never met a math course I didn't flunk. I spend my life staying as far away from mathematics as I can get.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Aug. 12 2007,19:44)]"Miniscule fraction of the time"... that would be sorta difficult, since we really have no idea that the current warming trend is actually abnormal. That's due to the fact that we only have "relatively" detailed data for the past 200-300 years, and past that you have to rely on inferred data instead of directly recorded data.

Problem is, the further you go back, the less finely detailed the inferred data becomes. You can't look back 50,000 years and get +/- 5 year accuracy with inferred data. You might get +/- 50... meaning that the finest data point you can determine will be at least 50 years from the next one. You can't get year-by-year temperatures for 65 million years ago.

Yet, people who are proponents of AGW would have you believe that scientists are able to see with +/- 5 year precision back that far, since they're saying stuff like that the current warming trend is "unprecedented"... when they actually mean "unprecedented as far back as we have data that is detailed enough to record spans of time this short". But in reality the actual temperature is nowhere near "unprecedented", nor is the CO2 concentration.

And if you also listen to the sound bites from the AGW crowd, they'll have you believing that as CO2 goes up so many points, temperature rises in a direct, agressive and linear relationship. Except back then, CO2 concentrations were up over 1000 ppm, and one would think that at nearly 3 times current CO2 levels, the earth would have been 40 billion degrees or something.

CO2 accounts for about 3.5% of the 'heat capacity' of the atmosphere, according to some estimates. Water vapor, on the other hand, is placed at somewhere above 70%... yet you don't hear the AGW crowd clamoring for water park bans or prohibition on lawn watering?

So maybe it isn't actually the "Global Warming" that is the real target? Maybe it's been the pollution all along?
Quote[/b] ]
You can't get year-by-year temperatures for 65 million years ago.

Yet, people who are proponents of AGW would have you believe that scientists are able to see with +/- 5 year precision back that far, since they're saying stuff like that the current warming trend is "unprecedented"... when they actually mean "unprecedented as far back as we have data that is detailed enough to record spans of time this short".


Actually scientists never claimed such precision that far back. In reality that is one reason why we don't delve that far back. We deal with what we can understand within a reasonable degree of certainty. It is possible that if we go back far enough we may find that our atmosphere was quite different than today and the temperature of the earth was too hot to sustain human life as we know it. But that doesn't mean that such a high temp would be normal under todays circumstances and/or that same phenomenon is driving todays rapid temperature rise.

If doctors determine that they are 95% sure that you have a curable disease do you reject the cure because there is a 5% probability that you don't have that disease ?

[KC4RAN]

OK you're completely missing it.

The argument that AGW proponents are currently using (since the dumb-old rest of us went and looked it up, and sure enough, the earth actually *was* this hot before, and hotter) is that it isn't the actual temperature, it's the fast change in the temperature.

Fast being measured in yearly temperatures over the last 20-50-100 years.

The earth has been cool before. It has come out of those cool periods. It is impossible to get 1, 5, or even 25 year precision out of the data from the last time, the last few times that the earth went through a similar cool phase. Therefore, how can you say it's 'unprecedented' for the temperature to rise this fast, when you can't data of similar precision for those periods?

It's intellectually and scientifically dishonest to claim that the rate of temperature change is unprecedented.

To put it into perspective, it would be like a weatherman claiming a daily high temperature record for February 21st when all he had for the last 10 year's recorded temperatures were monthly averages, and quarterly averages for the 25 years preceeding that, and yearly averages for the 100 years before that.

The dataset can't give you that level of precision, and therefore it is dishonest to claim any sort of 'unprecedented' high, or 'unprecedented' rise in temperature, since you cannot actually get data of similar precision from previous similar events.