Here’s a story of scientific investigation and discovery I’m proud to have
had a small part in.Regular readers may remember that I posted about a
climate station in Detroit Lakes MN last week, surveyed by volunteer Don
Kostuch, and cross posted it to the website
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1828#comments that had two air
conditioner units right next to it. It looked like an obvious cause and
effect because in 1999 on May 5th, it was determined that the a/c units were
moved off the roof of the radio station where this station resides and moved
them to the ground where the temperature sensor is close by.
Detroit Lakes, MN surveyed by Don Kostuch – Don has
single handedly done almost the entire state of Minnesota!However, some folks on the blogosphere just went, well, a little
ballistic over that assertion. It was a good thing too, because their very
loud and somewhat uncivil complaints led to an examination of this idea: if
its not the a/c units, what then did cause the temperature jump at that
time?
Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates
www.climateaudit.org and began to
investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were
graphed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish
the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the
graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the “corrected” data. He had to
reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed
data..
Here is one of his
where he begins to understand what is happening. “This imparts an upward
discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the
monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000
– and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a
programming error.”
He further refines his argument showing the
and the problems with the
USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.
here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web
page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a
corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA’s newly published data set from
Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation
from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations
throughout the USA.
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the
hottest year ever. 1934 is.
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now
from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are
from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003,
2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of
temperature are calculated separately.)
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order
8/7/2007
| Year | Old | New |
| 1934 | 1.23 | 1.25 |
| 1998 | 1.24 | 1.23 |
| 1921 | 1.12 | 1.15 |
| 2006 | 1.23 | 1.13 |
| 1931 | 1.08 | 1.08 |
| 1999 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| 1953 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| 1990 | 0.88 | 0.87 |
| 1938 | 0.85 | 0.86 |
| 1939 | 0.84 | 0.85 |
Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
| Year | Old | New |
| 1998 | 1.24 | 1.23 |
| 1934 | 1.23 | 1.25 |
| 2006 | 1.23 | 1.13 |
| 1921 | 1.12 | 1.15 |
| 1931 | 1.08 | 1.08 |
| 1999 | 0.94 | 0.93 |
| 1953 | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| 2001 | 0.90 | 0.76 |
| 1990 | 0.88 | 0.87 |
| 1938 | 0.85 | 0.86 |
I salute the work of Steven McIntyre, he has now made two major contributions to climate science.
1) Proving how the Mann “hockey stick” used in all Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was based on unsupportable data and methods.
2) Proving how yearly temperature anomalies for the USA are based on data that had been processed incorrectly.
Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado also deserves credit becuase he was the one who encouraged me to pursue the www.surfacestations.org project due to his broad work on land use change and it’s affect on regional and local climate.
Christ, some of you people are dense.
Amidst all your bitching about “propaganda,” did anyone actually bother to plot up the old/new datasets and compare them to one-another?
Anyone?
Because it would have taken you all of 2 minutes to do so.
OLD CONUS DATA:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200708/OLD_CONUS.gif
NEW CONUS DATA:
http://uploader.ws/upload/200708/NEW_CONUS.gif
Holy crap, this changes everything!
I agree that all scientist should review their method constantly and should not be influenced by politics on either side.
Global Warming is not only supported by measurements of thermometers in continental US. Other measurement methods are much superior such as the volume in Glaciers or Ice Caps. Their variation is already taking into account the change in the average temperature over the years.
Is the ice melting or not?
I gotta love sites like this, with posters so totally self-unaware that they write “Congratulations to both you and Steve, Anthony. Of course the propagandists will poo-poo this as illegitimate research because they didn’t do it.”
Damn, I’m dyin’!
That said, McIntyre did do a useful service to NASA–bad data makes climate modeling impossible to do. From my view, this discovery will only improve the evidence for global warming, at least in the long run.
Meeow.
Good job and very interesting revelation.
So where do we go from here?
I’m not about to make a blogment here but there must be a concise and precise report/journal so as to educate the public and to eradicate unintelligent guesses that lead to fights even within my tiny circle of friends.
I will recommend this site for a “must read”. Thank you very much.
Deltoid has posted the graphs of the old and the new, corrected dataset. The change is completely insignificant. It is amusing watching children play at scientist here. Kudos to McIntyre for finding this error.
I agree with Bruno’s density comment.
True in the US. 1998 and 2005 are still the hottest years in the global temperature record.
What, pray tell, is the big deal about 1934 being .02 degrees warmer than 1998? This is not a significant difference. We knew the dustbowl years where hot and dry. Are the AGW naysayers now pointing at the temperature record and saying it is accurate to .01 C? You won’t be able to deny the upward trend in the coming years.
For a somewhat different account of these events (and their significance) you might want to take a look at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
I can’t get to Deltoid’s gifs. I get a message saying ‘unauthorized referer’
TCO,
Yes I know you are capable at the salt in the wound thing, me too I suppose. Probably why we like to joust and jest with each other. No fighting here on Anthony’s site. He has a business to run and cannot waste time issuing a time out to us.
See you back on CA when it reopens..
Mosh-pit
Nice posting and comments, all.
The conclusion we can clearly draw is that NASA has been infiltrated by partisans who are no longer scientists.
Fortunately, the scientists who are at NASA are still willing to change their mistakes and publicly admit their error.
The partisans who refuse to divulge data and algorithms are marginalizing themselves.
I’ve posted an animated GIF comparing the old and new GISS curves here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/1082052393/
The change is hardly “insignificant“.
Here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/1083024680
Is a curve highlighting the annual mean rather than the 5-year. By any measure, the 1920s and 30s had the wackiest weather ever.
So, now we only have 4 in the 90’s and 00’s instead of 5 by very slim statistical margins. Still seems like a high number for this guy born in 1964. Why is everyone so happy that 1934 beat 1998? They only switched places…can you say “Big Picture”?
I am surprised of some people commenting; some people seem to want to find some excuse or misinterpretation or mistake to be able to say that the global warming stuff is a lie and thus we should just keep going as usual and let businesses do their own.
Look, even if the global warming theory is wrong, that does not make it right to be polluting half of the world, to be over-using natural resources, destroying forests, etc. So stop trying to find an excuse to use your Hummer without feeling guilty.
GISTEMP data have error bars, Chris. How would you characterize the change? Do an error analysis and present a numerical argument based on observed data. This is how science is done. I remain utterly unimpressed by this insignificant result.
We know the weather was bad in the 30s in North America. We know the earth is warming now. If you disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW, then tell us what it would take to convince you that AGW is real.
HR,
Thank you for defining what people should feel guilty about. What sexual practices do you recommend for me?
And is my weight in line with what you think is “right”? I’d hate to be eating too much for your tastes, since that too impacts my carbon footprint.
Here is my real world example of the Global Warming effects on Policy.
The State of California just passed legislation based on the Global Warming hysteria that has forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of kwh in “usage tiers”. Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts in the state legislature determined would reduce Global Warming, results in a penalty rate being charged to the customer.
My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I consumed electricity into the penalty range of the “usage tier” they call “energy hogs”.
My electric bill went from $200 to $600 even though most days were in excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F. I live near Palm Springs, Kalifornia.
I want a refund!
This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the planet with fraudulent research by NASA and others.
My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase because of bogus science. This is a real world example of consensus science run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the other businesses in this state.
This is Pure insanity. How do I as a homeowner pass the cost along?
We all are going to the City Council Meeting next Tuesday and are going to protest the new electric rates. I am going to bring in the new data from NASA to debunk their arguments about Global Warming.
You all should be outraged that public policy is based on junk science. You are going to be paying too. Like they say, California is usually the leader in liberal policies. If California passes something, so goes the nation.
Personally, I don’t get all the swarm of controversy, supposition, and political theater going on here.
To me it is just so much hot air. Hot air I am also guilty of as I stand (self) corrected on my first post. The temp adjustment is not significant with regard to temperature increase versus the last sunspot cycle. Again, someone correct me if I am wrong or missing something.
What this blog entry was about, ostensibly, is a temperature correction initiated by Steve MacIntyre which NASA accepted and credited him with.
The only real side issue, imho, is that the discovery of the correction was done by reverse engineering by a person outside of the NASA scientific community because NASA has a ridiculous policy of making pronouncements on data and climate predictions while withholding details on methodology.
The actual temperature adjustment does not affect their current averaged trend for the US or globally. While many (including myself) may question the strength of the trend and the reliability of the data and data massaging that produces it, Mr. McIntyre’s ingenious reverse engineering has a single and important result — an error went undetected until reviewed by a person working outside of the cloistered community of NASA environmental science.
That, folks, is real, effective peer review that NASA, for some inexplicable reason, has a policy of impeding. As such I feel NASA has a credibility and policy problem that sorely needs correction.
I’m still curious for an answer from those who think that global warming (GW) has been completely debunked by this finding.
Those who think we should do something because of GW believe we need to reduce our CO2 impact; reducing our CO2 impact primarily means finding alternative/renewable sources of energy that reduce our CO2 impact. (That is just a part of a long list of what could be done.)
After reviewing the “before” and “after” charts, I still see an upward trend. HOWEVER, let’s argue that CO2 is not part of the picture. Ok, then I’m guessing that, for you “debunkers”, your main argument against GW is that it is not sufficiently proven to be something we have any impact on, therefore, we shouldn’t waste money battling it. I think you don’t believe businesses should be spending money to reduce CO2 emissions, because those costs are then passed on to us consumers. Or, that you believe businesses will go bankrupt. I believe that is your argument, if not, please enlighten me. (And please don’t tell me that you don’t want scientist getting “rich” off of this whole GW nonsense, because whether true or false, that is not the point and is not a relevant argument….)
So, going with the postulation that you debunkers don’t want to have to pay more (as consumers or business owners) then tell me how ever increasing energy costs, ON AVERAGE, are going to be good for consumers and businesses? (I emphasize “on average” because I believe there will be times of lower costs for energy but on average, those costs will only go up as energy-carriers become more and more difficult to extract.)
In short, none of you “debunkers” have explained how our energy needs will be met by “business as usual” thinking. I need an answer here: if we and our leaders refuse to encourage the growth of a healthy and robust alternative/renewable energy industry, and we refuse to look at ways to improve efficiencies in both the transportation, commercial, and retail sectors and in the residential realm, how will our current fossil fuel infrastructure serve a growing economy in the First World while the developing world continues to grow and demand its own energy? And know that the developing economy of China alone (not to mention India) could easily match the size of the developed economy of Europe or the U.S. How are we going to meet our energy needs? If we don’t do something just to improve our energy efficient for that reason, ALONE, I don’t see how things could be anything but scary in the future.
If for no other reason, please explain how business as usual will be fine so that I, and a few others of us, can sleep as night. And so that I can be as enthusiastice of the future as you debunkers are with the knowledge that you, so far, haven’t shared with the rest of the world. Because, frankly, I’d rather believe you debunkers since your sense of what is going on sounds much easier than the world I’m envisioning.
JohnP breaks me up with:
Sure John, that’s how science is done by skeptics.
But the warmmongers do it with proprietary algorithms, dodgy data, and secret consensus handshakes. But that’s not surprising, after all, how can climate scientists be expected to fritter around doing “error analysis” when the fate of Gaia is in the balance?!
Oh, I get it. So you’re saying all those pictures that show glaciers and sea ice all over the world shrinking are shrinking because of the Y2K bug. Now it’s all clear….
/sarcasm off
Annoyed huffs:
Sure, glaciers and sea ice are shrinking in one part of the globe, but we’re also finding them thickening elsewhere. The more we learn about Earth’s climate system, the more complex we find the feedback controls are.
We may be getting warmer, but thanks to the shoddy work climate scientists are doing of peer review and error checking, the data saying we are is equivocal, just like your anecdotal photo evidence.
If we are warming, it’s very likely a natural process. The 30s showed us that temps can rise and fall dramatically at least once in a century, so our current warming cycle is not that unusual.
We had a Little Ice Age just 400 years ago. You would expect temps to bounce around like they have been but tend to continue rising until a stasis is reached (or until another ice age or ELE tries to wipe out life on the planet).
Also, the sun has been more active than at any time since the Mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum (another warm time). The jury is still out as to whether the active sun prevents cosmic rays from causing clouds thereby warming the surface, but even if it isn’t, a more active thermonuclear reaction going off just 90 million miles away is bound to have some effect!
So we have the Sun, recovery from an ice age, and normal variation as explanations for the current warming cycle. And a very small possibility that mankind has a hand in it, but that’s not likely. After all, over the last half billion years, CO2 has never driven global temperatures, even when CO2 levels were 17 times higher than they are now, temps have always remained within a relatively narrow 10 degree C band.
“Oh, I get it. So you’re saying all those pictures that show glaciers and sea ice all over the world shrinking are shrinking because of the Y2K bug. Now it’s all clear….”
Well, a big chunk of Antarctic ice falling into the sea makes a swell photo. *Ka-BOOM-bruggabruggabrugga-FLUMP*
But for some strange reason we just aren’t as turned on by all those exciting pics of Antarctic ice accumulting!
That’s the trouble–one side of the argument gets all the glamour shots!
“Oh, I get it. So you’re saying all those pictures that show glaciers and sea ice all over the world shrinking are shrinking because of the Y2K bug. Now it’s all clear….”
Well, a big chunk of Antarctic ice falling into the sea makes a swell photo. *Ka-BOOM-bruggabruggabrugga-FLUMP*
But for some strange reason we just aren’t as turned on by all those exciting pics of Antarctic ice accumulting!
That’s the trouble–one side of the argument gets all the glamour shots!
This does not change what a lot of you imbeciles think it changes.
I don’t think you understand what the annual mean temperature abnormality is measured against.
Chris I like the animation. But don’t use GISS’s bogus way of calculating a 5 year mean. Just do a proper 5 year running average.
Second, don’t worry about the error band. Hansen’s papers admit that the error ( 2sig is .1C) is a combination of data, Modelled data with stocashic error added, adjustments added deterministically and subjective assessments of data quality. In short. The reported error is nonsense.