Newly released FOIA'd emails from Hansen and GISS staffers show disagreement over 1998-1934 U.S. temperature ranking

From a Judicial watch press release

NASA Scientists Go on Attack After Climate Data Error Exposed

Contact Information: Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC — January 14, 2010

Email from Sato to Hansen 8-14-07 click to enlarge (Note: email addresses redacted as a courtesy by WUWT)

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

These new documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal GISS email correspondence as NASA scientists attempted to deal with the media firestorm resulting from the controversy. In one exchange GISS head James Hansen tells a reporter from Bloomberg that NASA had not previously published rankings with 1998 atop the list as the hottest year on record in the 20th century.

Email from Demian McLean, Bloomberg to Jim Hansen, August 14, 2007: “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”

Email Response from James Hansen to Damian McLean, August 14, 2007: “…We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”

Email from NASA Scientist Makiko Sato to James Hansen, August 14, 2007: “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…” (Email includes temperature chart dated January 1, 2007.)

(This issue also crops up in email communications with New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin a little over a week later.)

According to the NASA email, NASA’s incorrect temperature readings resulted from a “flaw” in a computer program used to update annual temperature data.

Hansen, clearly frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a “pest” and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.” Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a “light on upstairs.”

“This email traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA. Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data. Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest manner,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

=================================

Here’s a large package of emails from NASA GISS in one large PDF with 215 page which I’ve made available on the WUWT server which can handle the traffic this is likely to get.

783_NASA_docs (warning large PDF 11 MB)

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Sexton
January 14, 2010 2:25 pm

I really thought I’d never see NASA’s changing of historical data exposed in such a manner. Perhaps there is hope after all.

January 14, 2010 2:33 pm

No wonder there are still those who swear we were never on the moon!

belvedere
January 14, 2010 2:35 pm

Well i have read about 60 of those emails and i can say only one thing:
What the [snip] is going on here??
It sickens me that Steve and Anthony are being portrated like a bunch of loonies instead of themselfs..
Keep up the good work Anthony and Steve! I love you!

Ron de Haan
January 14, 2010 2:42 pm
b_C
January 14, 2010 2:45 pm

Simple: henceforth the CIA will audit NASA GISS temperature data. While they’re at it, perhaps they can check out whether Hansen’s boxers have been twisted into a permanent knot.

Editor
January 14, 2010 2:45 pm

Eric (skeptic) (13:51:38) :
“Judicial Watch has always been sort of a loose cannon. Their announcement isn’t going to send shivers down anyone’s spine.”
Only Daily Kos Kool-Aid chuggers would consider Judicial Watch a “loose cannon”. They are a widely recognised watchdog and whistle blowing group with a number of successes over the years not only in exposing scandal, but in forcing open closed government records found embarrassing by bureaucrats and big-government politicians. Lets all drop the ad hom attacking the messenger and look at the facts. The documents in question are NASA’s, so it really doesn’t matter who brought them to light.

Patrik
January 14, 2010 2:49 pm

You know, Sweden was just as warm as the US in 1934, compared to now. Could it have been global?

Leon Brozyna
January 14, 2010 2:50 pm

Hansen changes his mind and the data so often that it’s a wonder anything can be said about the historical ‘record’. I tried to think of something or someone with which to compare the frequency of his changes, but it would surely be offensive to any man, woman, or group to which his conduct could be compared, and I could come up with some real doozies. Let me just say that perhaps he’s way past due for retirement, and let it go at that.

Steve McIntyre
January 14, 2010 2:51 pm

In 2007, on the 1934-1998 issue: I agreed that Hansen had been for 1934, before he was against it.

Jimbo
January 14, 2010 2:51 pm

I’m beginning to think that the forecast by Jim Hansen about 2010 having a 50% chance of being the warmest year is more like a promise than a forecast. :o)

“Indeed, given the continued growth of greenhouse gases and the underlying global warming trend (Figure 3b) there is a high likelihood, I would say greater than 50 percent, that 2010 will be the warmest year in the period of instrumental data.”

Source

Robert Ray
January 14, 2010 2:52 pm

D. King (14:03:44)
“OMG… not the Flaw!”
Is that a raw Flaw or a “value added Flaw”?

Chuck
January 14, 2010 2:53 pm

At least the FOI seems to work in the US better than other parts of the world!!

carlbrannen
January 14, 2010 2:53 pm

I’m glad to see FOIA acts successful on this. Is this about the first one, or did I miss other releases? And I wonder if Climategate will effect how FOIA requests are handled. I would think it would increase the pressure to release.

starzmom
January 14, 2010 2:58 pm

Seems I read somewhere recently that 1998 is on top of the heap again. I was surprised because I remember this little episode a couple years ago. Do the different parts of NASA/GISS say different things. That could be inconvenient, too.
Guess I must be a loonie too.

Michael
January 14, 2010 3:03 pm

OT
Rothschild Family to Donate $50 Billion to Haiti Relief Efforts.
This offer for help comes with no strings attached.
There are estimates the Rothschild’s are worth $100 trillion.
$50 Billion is but a drop in the bucket of the Rothschild’s budget.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/121585

rbateman
January 14, 2010 3:05 pm

When was the last time these people presented the data unaltered?
Seriously.

January 14, 2010 3:06 pm

Did GISS throw away data too?

HotRod
January 14, 2010 3:06 pm

I can’t judge the science, but I can judge the tone of the emails. Errors don’t matter. 0.15c difference seems big to me. H/T Steve yet again.

January 14, 2010 3:07 pm

Have the reasons for these adjusments (just to the US data set) ever been fully explained? It appears that Sato is joining other climate scientist who have lost some of the original data. Why was Sato not interested in US data after 2001? Was it possibly becasue the major adjustments done prior to 2001 had a desired effect? Sato claims to not know why the biggest adjustments were made!! He says , rather sadly, “I may have some of the data.”
Really a rather telling letter.

January 14, 2010 3:15 pm

And of course not only the reasons, but the formula for changing them, were those released??
Thanks

Konrad
January 14, 2010 3:15 pm

Peter of Sydney (14:17:11)
I have to agree with your comments about NASA but there is hope, check out http://www.spacex.com/
This company may have their Falcon 9 / Dragon space vehicle operational while NASA is still trying to make ARES work.

January 14, 2010 3:16 pm

edgar (14:19:55) :
the hotter they claim it gets the more taxpayer money they get. Give me a million dollars and I’ll tell you it’s d**n hotter than hades and getting worse every year.

Give me two million above that and I will claim it is worse that you thought.

January 14, 2010 3:25 pm

Hey, I’m flattered by the mention on your site today, but can you please correct the spelling of my name? Both versions are wrong.
And here’s a link to the full Bloomberg story:
http://tinyurl.com/2qq9k3
If I remember correctly, we broke the NASA-temperature story among mainstream media, though blogs were there way before us.
REPLY: Fixed, but you might also want to make a note to Judicial Watch, where the error originated.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/jan/judicial-watch-uncovers-nasa-documents-related-global-warming-controversy
– Anthony

HotRod
January 14, 2010 3:27 pm

revkin August 2007 – I never till today visited surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. If our stations are that shoddy what’s it like in Mongolia?
Love it.

Ray
January 14, 2010 3:30 pm

If that is not (yet another) enough reasons for immediate dismissal, what will it take?