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.
I love Irony. When CA called the error a “y2K” error some folks were quick to respond: It’s not a Y2K error, it’s a data input error.
Pause a minute and think.
whats the first thing you do… the first thing you check and verify. Read the file. If you can’t get that right…
Begin
Get Input data
Process input data
Output results.
End
Most programmers out there are dying with laughter. ” you messed up input files?”
Free the code.
I love the way warmers run for the ICE.
Is the Ice in the artic melting?
How do we know?
Is the record long enough to be significant?
How is air temperature measured in the artic?
Why does ice decay?
( the last question is a trick question)
Be very careful when running on the ice.
Warwick is a good source here.
I love the way warmers run for the ICE.
Is the Ice in the artic melting?
How do we know?
Is the record long enough to be significant?
How is air temperature measured in the artic?
Why does ice decay?
( the last question is a trick question)
Be very careful when running on the ice.
Warwick is a good source here.
I love the way warmers run for the ICE.
Is the Ice in the artic melting?
How do we know?
Is the record long enough to be significant?
How is air temperature measured in the artic?
Why does ice decay?
( the last question is a trick question)
Be very careful when running on the ice.
Warwick is a good source here.
You’ll have to show me the math….
I understand why the years between 2000-2006 and 1893-1899 would be suspect and caught as a “y2k” problem, but that doesn’t explain the different ordering for the years from 1900-1999.
Either they found “other” issues with the data or something else is up….
-CF
Annoyed,
The issues are:
1. Enforcing the scientific method on AGW folks.
2. The benefits of Independent review IN ADDITION to peer review.
3. The change in the US record. Now the 30s look like a Early century warming period, Prior to the the exponential release of C02
4. NASAs unbalanced PR.
5. Concerns about what a full audit will show.
The AGW argument is this.
“hey, its .01C on a glbal basis”
The counter is: we only audited 1/6 of 2% of the stations.
If yu found an error on the first page of your wifes check book, would you jump to the conclusion that there were no more errors t be foound in the next 100 pages?
Chris,
“If climate change is real (regardless of the cause) then we’re screwed”
I can imagine you are believing that since the media and a majority (the so called 95%?) of the scientific community appear to support that view. Just “google” the expressing “climate change” in combination with any of the following things we humans like (e.g. sea turtles, panda’s, harlequin frogs, orang-utangs, Adelie penguins, whales, porpoises, butterflies, tigers, bears, polar bears, koala bears, coral fish, coral reefs, trout, tropical rainforests, ancient monuments, Eskimos, spaghetti, wine)
And then do the same with things we dislike( e.g. mosquitoes, cockroaches, scorpions, poisonous spiders, ants, mice, poison ivy, Lyme disease, dengue fever, asthma, allergens, jelly fish, feral cane toads, feral cats, storms, droughts, floods, death, poverty, wars, ice age, extreme weather events.
What you will find is that there are no (or hardly any) reports or studies in the likable category that show any benefit from global warming. Indeed all the things we like are in demise or at risk of going extinct. On the other hand, all the examples from the non-likable category are invariably on the increase due to global warming. In other words global warming is detrimental (or catastrophic, if you like) in every respect.
The obvious question remains: would a cooler world then be good for all the things on the list we like and alleviate us from all those things we don’t like, i.e. would a cooler world be generally beneficial? For example: more and healthier coral reefs, more koala bears, more butterflies, more sea turtles, more whales, more urang-utangs but less floods, less storms or other extreme weather events, less jelly fish, less cockroaches, less poison ivy, less diseases, less wars, less poverty etc. etc. I don’t think anybody would believe that such a positive scenario is realistic or even remotely plausible. Our gut feeling is that a colder world would be a harsher place for humans (i.e. our anthropocentric preferences) than a warmer world. Indeed history shows that the medieval warm period was one of progress and the little ice age one of relative hardship.
I congratulate you and Steve. We are on that 5% of scientists that see the real state of climate.
“McIntyre’s Grenadier Guards and Watts’ Light Horse have had rather a spectacular victory. Carry on, gentlemen.”
Today, Bennington; tomorrow, Saratoga?
(Quien sabe? If our AWatts closes this one out with the surfacestations project, maybe the French will sign on!)
Evan, I claim no victory, only a better understanding and an improved accuracy in reporting the near surface temperature record.
There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done.
Science is not a game of winning, but an ongoing saga of improved understanding.
“if you are of the false impression that we will be able to extract oil out of the ground AT THE SAME PRICE indefinitely”
Yes, I am. With the minor modification that fuel will increase in real price but become a lower and lower percentage of income. That’s the historical trend.
I expect that would be the case for at least three centuries (even at 6% incresed use/year), except that alternative fuels will undoubtedly be available long, long before that.
And that assumes we can’t find any more potential reserves (which I sincerely doubt.)
There are–darn good–economic reasons why we almost never have more than 30 or so years proven reserve of any given resource! (And why 30 years later of intensive use, there’s STILL a 30-year proven reserve!)
Check out The Next 200 Years (Herman Kahn), the definitive book that (almost singlehandedly) broke the back of the Club of Rome.
But this is OT, so I will not go on (but I could).
“Seven of the ten hottest five-year periods have all occurred within the last decade.”
Musta been quite a decade!
(Would ya care to rephrease that, laddie? )
“They’re just trying to attack the business community, because they enjoy that.”
I used to be part of that crowd.
And yes, we enjoyed it very much indeed!
“I don’t think you understand what the annual mean temperature abnormality is measured against.”
Yeah, well no one does, do they? And no one will until they release data and methods.
Two words: Source Code.
Two more words: Operating manuals.
As for the unfortunate 9-11 comment, I can see why the gvt. would want that classified for security reasons. Would it be prudent to explain carefully to the world-at-large the best way to knock down skyscrapers?Speaking personally, I’d just as soon the terrorists had to “reconstruct” THOSE data annd methods!
David Walton: I think you may be reading me wrong.
“Evan, I claim no victory, only a better understanding and an improved accuracy in reporting the near surface temperature record.”
“There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done.”
“Science is not a game of winning, but an ongoing saga of improved understanding.”
It’s statements like these that inspires confidence in your judgement.
So you claim no victory. (Ah, the nobility, the chivalry of that statement!) Very well, then. You need not claim it. It is WE who accord you the victory! (And I think I speak for others, here.)
BTW, you were making some–very–tempting noises about putting up the surfacestation ratings . . . (always impatient and hopeful!)
Also, any word on your whitewash/latex experiment?
The question is, where do we expend our scarce resources? We could address problems that are taking human life today or spend money on an unproven threat which cause is undetermined. Risk/reward analysis gives a clear answer. Problem is, news makers and news reporters do not understand economics (else have nefarious motives.
Question, the correction was required due to an error in the 2000 to 2006 data. Why would 1998 and the other pre-2000 data need corrections?
see tamino’s analysis here
showing old and new data, as well as other data commenters asked him to plot
this thread has a lot of random discussion (which isn’t necessarily bad), but it’s worthwhile to realize what the significance is to the measurement trend
captdallas: The figures are probably based on a multi-year average. The numbers for “1998” are not the actual number that was collected in 1998; it’s an average of the numbers collected from 1993 to 2003.
The idea is to smooth out cyclic variations and get an overall trend. For example, if your measurements are 1,3,1,3,1,3,1,3 then it all averages to 2,2,2,2. But if your numbers are 1,3,1,5,1,7,1,9, then it averages to 2,3,4,5. In the first case, there’s no “change” even though the number keeps going up and down. In the second case, we see a change, even though the number always “goes back” to 1.
Note how the site http://www.climateaudit.org/ no longer seems to be up, access forbidden to data that makes the government look stupid and makes there carbon footprint “tax” seem unnecessary..
Good question. I can only assume that the post 1999 adjustments affected the computer model’s overall interpretation.
If so, it would seem to speak VERY badly for the model.
I’ve done historical models including a complete storyboard for the wargsme Blue Vs Gray, and I’m painfully aware of the process that adjusts A which then reflects on B (although real life would show no connection whatever between A and B).
One of the reasons I cast a very jaundiced eye toward models.
Plus, when one does a model, one falls in love with it and believes it endowed with prophetic power.
It ain’t, see?
(Our Right Rev. Dubya, St. Mac or the Drs. P. would be more qualified to comment.)
I have a doubt:
If it is man-made CO2 that brings global warming, naively I would exspect that the US should be among the world regions in which the warming is MORE severely felt.
But now, after NASA revision, it seems that US are among the places LESS affected by long term warming…
There is something to ponder upon or everything is perfectly clear?
I found this to be the esiest way to sum it up for those that loose attention real fast.
New top 10 temperatures
Year
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939 New
Old top 10 temperatures
Year
1998 Tied
1934 Tied
2006
1921
1931
1999
1953
2001 removed
1990
1938
Yet another NASA goof exposed for all to see. Disband it. Take the nascent return of heavy lift and transfer it to DoD, in fact, transfer all strategic manned exploration and plant-the-flag thusly. Transfer all climate resarch to the DoI and NOAA. Cull out all politically motivated sad excuses for scientists and let them show us what they are worth … I am collecting resumes and hire very, very selectively. Put the remaining NASA work up for sale to the academic community.
1978 and 1979 were the coldest years in the US since 1929. There was a general cooling trend in the US since the Dust Bowl days of the mid 1930’s down to 1979. I remember some climatologists back in the late 1970’s predicting that the Earth was heading for the next Ice Age.
By the way everyone is missing the point. The Earth is warming. It has been warming since the last Ice Age and will continue to warm until the break over point to the next Ice Age is reached no matter what Humanity does. We only have the choice to get to the break over point earlier or later by the actions that we take.
“But now, after NASA revision, it seems that US are among the places LESS affected by long term warming…
“There is something to ponder upon or everything is perfectly clear?”
Ponder this: If you look at the raw, undjusted data, it shows what looks–very–much like an actual cooling trend for the 20th Century. Little warming, at best.
And that’s the raw data!
Furthermore, it seems to me to be farly clear that most of the measurement biases introduced during the 20th Century have been to the warm. Especially since 1980. (As we impatiently await the results of the Right Rev. Dubya’s surfacestation project.)
So one would expect the adjustment to be
A.) downward, overall, and,
B.) Even MORE downward since 1980.
Right?
So guess which way NASA and NOAA adjust their raw data.
Upward, overall, and especially upward during recent years, that’s how.
One is led to wonder about the reasoning behind the data adjustment.
For my money, you’re better off going with the raw data, as flawed as it is. (And one also wants to know what the raw data of the “good” surface stations will reveal.)