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)

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Diatribe Guy
January 15, 2010 1:10 pm

Some time ago, Anthony posted a clip that shows pre-adjusted GISS transforming into post-adjusted GISS.
I can’t find it, and I’m having difficulty remembering when that was posted. If anyone knows what I’m talking about and can provide a link, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
REPLY: That doesn’t ring a bell, can you be more descriptive? -A

January 15, 2010 1:51 pm

In my summary above I missed a second smoking gun (besides data destruction and non-archiving of old code) involving incremental adjustments and re-adjustments to the GISTEMP product, as has now been plotted by L. Skywalker here: http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-version-of-climategate-coming.html

Kevin Kilty
January 15, 2010 1:57 pm

Michael (15:03:10) :
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

Now just a dog-gone moment. One-hundred trillion dollars is just about the entire capital stock of the entire planet, including my house and thine!

Kevin Kilty
January 15, 2010 1:58 pm

The Diatribe Guy (13:10:59) :
Some time ago, Anthony posted a clip that shows pre-adjusted GISS transforming into post-adjusted GISS.
I can’t find it, and I’m having difficulty remembering when that was posted. If anyone knows what I’m talking about and can provide a link, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
REPLY: That doesn’t ring a bell, can you be more descriptive? -A

Refering to the Orlando, California record, maybe?

Tim Clark
January 15, 2010 1:58 pm

REPLY: That doesn’t ring a bell, can you be more descriptive? -A
I believe he wants the blink comparative graph showing pre-uhi/post-uhi and pre/tobs post/tobs –all in one post. About six months ago. I can’t find it either. It might have been Smokey that had it.

January 15, 2010 2:01 pm

(Correction: it was Ira Glickstein not L. Skywalker who plotted the values in one of the e-mails.)

Kevin Kilty
January 15, 2010 2:09 pm

Richard Garnache (07:09:33) :
Seriously folks, does anyone believe that we know the real average temperature over the country to within .1 degree C?
No. And what’s more, is mean global temperature even a useful number? If energy balance is maintained by radiation through the water vapor window, wouldn’t something like the fourth to fifth root of the mean of temperature raised to some power between four and five make more sense?
Or, how about this? Mean temperature under an given set of forcings could be any number between X and X+Delta X, depending on whether the major contribution to longwave emission is a group of local hot radiators near the surface in the tropics/subtropics or a group of regional cool radiators in the temperate/polar regions? In the former case the earth mean temperature is lower than in it is in the latter case; but, in neither case is the mean temperature very meaningful.

Kevin Kilty
January 15, 2010 7:25 pm

Oh, for heaven’s sake! I type my post once and it vanishes. I re-type it and do not manage to embed the doggone URL. So, let me try again…

Dr. Bob (15:58:52) :
Obviously I believe that 1934 was warmer than 1998 (click my name, I run a skeptic blog.)
What I don’t understand is this: How do we reconcile that 1934 was warmer than 1998 with our current temperature graphs? For instance, this from the HadCRUT3 data set:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl
Clearly shows that 1998 was 0.2′C or so warmer than 1934. Is this due to all of the adjustments? Would a more accurate graph show a peak in 1934, then the 40 year cooling period, then a rise in temperatures to the same amplitude as the 1934 peak?
Thank you for any guidance.

I do not know the details of HADCRU’s correction scheme, but it cannot be very different from NCDC. If you go to this page right here, you will find a pretty thorough explanation of NCDC adjustment/correction scheme. The graph of effect of individual adjustments plus the graph of over-all adjustment tells the entire story of how the current decades and 1998 in particular appear on graphs so warm compared to the 1930s. The pertinent question to ask is “Are these adjustments correct and justified?” There is no answer at present, but there is reason for doubt.
I hope this actually helps this time.

The Diatribe Guy
January 16, 2010 1:10 pm

“That doesn’t ring a bell, can you be more descriptive? -A”
Sorry. I hope I’m not misremembering…
As I recall it was a graphic (youtube maybe?) that showed a nice chart, and then it rotated to the latest adjsuted data. I may have been in error when I called it pre-adjusted and post-adjusted. It may more accurately be what the GISS data showed some time ago versus what the GISS showed after continued application of their adjustments. I thought it was a graphic put together by someone else, as a guest post.
If that’s still not enough to go on, don’t worry about it.

Kevin Kilty
January 16, 2010 9:53 pm

The Diatribe Guy (13:10:52) :
“That doesn’t ring a bell, can you be more descriptive? -A”
Sorry. I hope I’m not misremembering…
As I recall it was a graphic (youtube maybe?) that showed a nice chart, and then it rotated to the latest adjsuted data. I may have been in error when I called it pre-adjusted and post-adjusted. It may more accurately be what the GISS data showed some time ago versus what the GISS showed after continued application of their adjustments. I thought it was a graphic put together by someone else, as a guest post.
If that’s still not enough to go on, don’t worry about it.

Maybe it was the blink comparator of all those Illinois stations that Mike McMillan put up? Six months ago sounds too long ago though.

Jason Sands
January 17, 2010 5:18 am

Why isn’t this link allowed to stay in the comments?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html

1 4 5 6