UPDATE: See
via SpaceRef.com
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, January 14, 2010
Source: KUSI-TV
Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as “THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. “That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says D’Aleo.
The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the “Climategate” controversy.
This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. “For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature base and the grid method, is like comparing apples and oranges,” says Smith. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” added D’Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is “scientific travesty” that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.
Smith and D’Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, “Global Warming: The Other Side” seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.kusi.com/. The detailed report is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m glad this story is getting out into the public. I don’t care which part of the media puts it into the public; small tv stations, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio—just get the word out and get James Hansen out of NASA.
Dr. Bob said (17:25:02) :
Sometimes I am on the “well, maybe CO2 contributed a very very tiny percentage to the most recent warming period of 1975-1998″, and the other half of the time I think “the temperature record is so worthless that I’m not even sure if we’re warmer than the earlier part of the century.”
The second part of Dr Bob’s comment reflects the concern I have had since I first started trying to understand the CAGW hypothesis. I kept asking “what is the margin for error?” when reading analyses of past temperatures derived from proxies, and when reading analyses of past and present temperatures taken from actual measurements.
If you take a measurement from a temperature gauge today you cannot say it is accurate. All you can say is that it is accurate within the margin of error of that particular instrument. If you then want to extrapolate that measurement as an indication of temperature in the area of 100 yards around the gauge you introduce factors that expand the margin of error.
I find it difficult to accept that temperatures recorded by identical thermometers in five gardens either side of mine will produce identical results. In fact it would be bizarre if they did because each thermometer has its own margin of error and the placement of the devices adds a further inexactitude.
Yet we are invited to believe that actual, estimated and averaged temperatures over the whole planet can be stated to within a couple of tenths of a degree and that future changes in temperature can be estimated to a degree or two.
Call me a denier, call me a sceptic, call me anything you want, but I remain unconvinced that measurements involving substantial margins of error can justify any firm conclusions.
When the official history of all this is published, you all realize that everything we have read here and every comment we have made here (and on every other website of similiar content) will have been purged from the record and destroyed. And, after extensive research into who we were, everything about us –including our graves stone inscriptions, will also be destroyed. It will be as if we never existed. I imagine that by then it will not be very difficult for the UN’s Hav’erd History Dept. to amend anything they want to or delete anyone they wish.
[snip] Sorry, I don’t usually shout foul acronyms, but it is just plain bizarre that a scientific community can betray the basic tenants of its profession so brazingly.
I guess it just proves that some in this world subscribe to infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ assertion that “… when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it.”… justifying “false, but true” bull as long as the one propagating the lie is a pure as snow liberal who knows what’s best for the rest of us Neanderthals.
Sheesh. What arrogance!
I call [snip] to all the above pompousness.
If you really think that there is fraud in the manipulation of data, you should be suing someone.
Is this not the American way?
instead you make *ALLEGATIONS* not proved anywhere in a forum that can determine the truth.
LOL
time for all the vampires here to start their ad hominem and totally illogical attacks upon my person.
I believe I have an example of how the records have been altered. If you send me an email address, I’ll send it to you.
Mike McMillan (17:28:30) :
I’ve completed USHCN vs USHCN version 2 blink comparison charts. Is there a “dummy’s guide” blink comparator showing the total adjustment for each state?
Blaming earthquakes on AGW is just moronic. Danny Glover gets a duh award.
As to the topic of this thread, I am a little confused. Does this mean only 2005, or 2005 on?
Let’s not go overboard. I’ll say again what I said right after Climategate broke. The tweaking that exists will, after the dust has settled, turn out to have raised the temperature anomaly by only a small amount. We shouldn’t focus on that point. If we do, then the alarmists will eventually have the comeback that the scandal doesn’t affect the underlying science / data very much.
What we should focus on is the willingness of the gatekeepers involved to participate in, or wink at, such shenanigans, which impugns their trustworthiness on every other point, most particularly their predictions and prescriptions.
Here’s an analogy: Let’s say the treasurer of a company has been discovered misappropriating $10 from the company’s petty cash cigar box. The important point to focus on isn’t the loss of the $10, which is a piddling amount, but what OTHER fiddles (perhaps unconscious or even well-meaning) he may have committed in the company’s books.
Independent auditors (scientists not marinated in the hothouse atmosphere of climatology) must come in and examine everything in organized clime (including the conscious and unconscious inferences it makes) in order to ensure that all is on the up-and-up.
I particularly liked the Latin quote: “Non gradus anus rodentum.” My Latin is a little out of date, but I believe he said that the data is “not worth a rat’s ass.” Beautiful!
“Revised raw data. Oxymoron?”
They used to call it “value data”. Typical snake oil talk. There are lies, dam lies, statistics, and revised climate data.
And it’s all George Bush’s fault….
…but seriously, is anyone surprised by this?
Looking at Anthony’s work, I am convinced that the climate ‘stations’ used are all strategically located next to the A/C exhaust vents found on top the administrative office buildings of sewer plants that were built next to major International Airport parking lots!
mpaul (18:23:57) :
Your “peer review” should read “genuine peer review”? 😉
Anthony,
I looked at a few time zone converters today for the very purpose described above. I added this one to my sidebar:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
There are others you may like better. I searched – time zone converter
There’s no denying the excellent credentials of E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.
Excellent work!
nanuuq (19:16:45) :
Thank you for your comment. Vampires do not eat trolls.
iOh, and Danny Glover today blames the Haiti earthquake on global warming.
It is easy to explain. The glaciers on Hispaniola melted relieving the pressure on the rocks below allowing them to shift.
Some of you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if the global mean temperature has risen somewhat over the past 100+ years. It’s part of a much longer term trend of rising temperature. No big deal. It’s the claim that the rise has accelerated somewhat over the past 100 years compared to the previous centuries. Clearly this is not the case as there is ample evidence to prove the recent variations are well within normal operational parameters of natural climate change. So, any talk of a man-made runaway in global warming is a hoax. End of story.
I began to appreciate the advantages of grid averaging when I put it to good use on the map of Colorado. Instead of many thousands of altitude readings, I could get by with just one for each grid. I measure the bottom of a valley and the peak of a mountain, divide by 2, and there you go.
This would be an incalculable benefit to mapmakers everywhere. Think of the ink saved!
Minor irregularities have been observed of course, such as trout in the mountains and rather flat ski runs. Several rivers have reversed direction on my maps.
But I am willing to overlook these minor problems in the interest of accuracy.
nanuuq (19:16:45) :
I call [snip] to all the above pompousness.
If you really think that there is fraud in the manipulation of data, you should be suing someone.
Is this not the American way?
instead you make *ALLEGATIONS* not proved anywhere in a forum that can determine the truth.
LOL
time for all the vampires here to start their ad hominem and totally illogical attacks upon my person.
It takes time to build a case. Patience lad. It will all come out in due time.
I am beginning to also adopt the approach that the data is so suspect that it is meaningless, with out a full audit and provenance to prove it really is “raw original source data!
I suspect the only solution would be for a companion to the surface stations project, where teams of volunteers go to historical documents that are beyond modification like library microfilm records and validate random temperature records to get a sample of how trustworthy supposedly raw data is.
Does anyone know if the major repository libraries have hard copy or microfilm records of original National Weather Service station records, or is our only independent check on them the numbers reported in local newspapers?
Unfortunately those news paper records will only be reported to single degree’s even if the original data was of higher precision, but it would show if major adjustments have been made to high and low temperature records.
Larry
fatbigot (19:12:54) :
“Call me a denier, call me a sceptic, call me anything you want, but I remain unconvinced that measurements involving substantial margins of error can justify any firm conclusions.”
—–
Reply: I shall call you a Climate Realist.
” …”The Other Side” seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website http://www.kusi.com/. ”
It’s 11:30 EST, and I’m happy to report that the program is NOT available to view at this time. At this time… it’s only 8:30 in San Diego, so the show hasn’t happened yet. I was wondering if you had a time warp, or if maybe the tape had been pre-released to the rest of the world.
I’m going to bed now. Will the program be available to view tomorrow?
Many thanks to Roger Sowell.
0500 UTC is 1600 local time here in Sydney, Australia, so I now know for sure that I can watch the program.
Thanks again.
Here’s a good read.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/413-benny-peiser-copenhagen-and-the-demise-of-green-utopia.html