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.
Obviously you’re standing right there. You can’t possibly stand anywhere but where you are.
The raw data must have been rotten data.
Can someone please divide the total volume of atmosphere, say up a few miles, and divide it by the total number of IPCC thermometers used to measure climate, so I can contemplate the statistics of total volume (or surface area) per thermometer,
Regarding Mike McMillan (17:28:30)
Great blink charts, some questions, how many states has this been done for? I mean the blink charts , has it been done for the US composite, the world? And finally how have thes agencies explained this?
Hope you see this, thanks.
Well, it’s after 9pm and I don’t see the video on KUSI…
REPLY: But we have it here, check the main page of WUWT
Anthony
Jeff Alberts (20:22:01) :
There are a plethora of definitions for “stand”, only one of which applies as you used it. Even then, Dr Bob’s usage is metaphorical.
be standing; be upright; “We had to stand for the entire
performance!” [syn: {stand up}] [ant: {sit}, {lie}]
be in some specified state or condition; “I stand corrected”
occupy a place or location, also metaphorically; “We stand
on common ground”
hold one’s ground; maintain a position; be steadfast or
upright; “I am standing my ground and won’t give in!”
[syn: {remain firm}] [ant: {yield}]
have or maintain a position or stand on an issue; “Where do
you stand on the War?”
put up with something or somebody unpleasant; “I cannot bear
his constant criticism”; “The new secretary had to endure
a lot of unprofessional remarks”; “he learned to tolerate
the heat”; “She stuck out two years in a miserable
marriage” [syn: {digest}, {endure}, {stick out}, {stomach},
{bear}, {tolerate}, {support}, {brook}, {abide}, {suffer},
{put up}]
remain inactive or immobile; “standing water”
be in effect; be or remain in force; “The law stands!”
be tall; have a height of; copula; “She stands 6 feet tall”
put into an upright position; “Can you stand the bookshelf
up?” [syn: {stand up}, {place upright}]
withstand the force of something; “The trees resisted her”;
be available for stud services; “male domestic animals such
as stallions serve selected females”
[also: {stood}]
Roger Knights correctly pointed out that restudy of the data won’t change the results very much.
i. e. it really won’t matter in the big scheme if restudy indicates the rise has been, say, 0.4 C instead of 0.6C over the last Century.
Perhaps that will take a year. Or five years. But I suspect the polar bears will not go extinct by then.
The important matter is accountability. Now it will be hard for climatologists to publish or assert anything without showing data and methods.
People talk. Gradually we will learn what, if any, unjustified data changes were made. And how well the work was done. And whether the “team” really was suppressing or hampering work that contradicted their conclusions and bias.
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.
I do not like your tone, but your verb is fine. Based on this post alone anyway. However there have been indications of very serious problems in climate science for some time.
To Pascvaks
For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
Sorry it would have to be the “Forth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.
To Pascvaks
For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
Sorry it would have to be the “Fourth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.
Gary Turner (21:07:26) :
Dude, it was a joke.
An experiment that someone who knows their way round the data might want to do, that would probably be quite quick.
If I was going to take a quick look at the data, with the minimum possible need for adjustments, I would pick a station (stations) with 100 year of raw data. I would then combine them and look for a trend. (Pretty obvious.)
Now if I wanted to fiddle the outcome of even that simple test, and I had the ability to shut down stations, or prevent their data getting into the dataset, I would close or exclude stations that had a long term cooling trend, leaving only “warming” stations.
So, a simple test would be to take all the stations that had data from, for example, 1900 to 1985. Then divide that set into two, call them Set A and Set B. Set A is every station that is STILL contributing data by 2000 (or 1995). Set B is every station that is NOT contributing data by 2000 (1995).
Then see if there is a difference between the temperature trend of Set A and Set B up to 1985. In other words, is there any sign that the stations to be maintained been pre-selected based on the temperature trend.
The second Roman Empire being the Holy Roman Empire 962 to 1806.
Everyone, its a glorious day here in Perth (australia), Friday afternoon, I’ve had a few beers at lunch, and just about to nick off for few more.
So, despite the disgrace thats been happening for years with this issue, I’ll pose the real question…………
Does anyone fancy a pint??? CBD pub in 15………
You’re one to talk about illogic, pomposity and groundless allegation.
This post and John Coleman’s show are necessarily non-technical and presented so that even a layman can grasp it. However, the background analysis if far more detailed.
If you bothered to read the detailed case laid out by E.M. Smith on his blog over many weeks, you’d find code, data and methodology. Rather than spouting your “Joe Rommish trollspeak,” how about reading beyond the headlines and doing an equally detailed analysis including code, data and methodology to refute E.M. Smith and Joe D’Aleo?
We eagerly await your results. Though I’m not holding my breath.
Well, Plato said it was ok for the rulers (philosopher kings) to lie to the people for their own good. Called it the Noble Lie. In those days natural philosophers were the days scientists.
Actually, scientists do good work but are constrained by funding limitations as to what they can research, as most funding comes from the government, and the government is advised by the warmers on what should be funded.
Peer review limits what they can say as well, so they always pay lip service acknowledging AGW even if their findings contradict AGW’s hypothesis, otherwise one of the reviewers who may be a warmer will reject it (did I see leigh comment he has to pay a page fee and this costs up to 11,000 dollars, why Einstein working in a patent office never would have got his theory of relativity published today).
It’s just those philosopher king types that give science a bad name. Lets face it, we are in the Dark Ages, and the warmers Church is invested in man causing the warming, as we are sinners. Deniers or skeptics are heretics and will go to a Green hell on Earth. Amen.
Galen Haugh (20:05:14) wrote:
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. unquote
Better, I’ll call you a dissenter — or a dissident. You dissent from the consensus position. This word has advantages: it points up the ideological nature of the world view you are opposing, has a romantic, rebellious ring for those who lived through the 60s, and, best of all, will get up Monbiot’s nose.
Me, I’m a climate dissident having started from alarmed (cured that by reading RC which seemed to be into bludgeoning people rather than educating them — I don’t know how much funding they get from Fenton but if it’s more than tuppence it’s wasted) to undecided (cured that by reading CA, WUWT and the wonderfuilly eccentric graphs at Lucia’s site) to my current position.
Now I don’t know what the hell is going on with the climate and I don’t believe anyone else does either.
Time to start again from scratch.
JF
Has anyone else inspected the CD publications from NCDC for other states for year 2005? I happened to discover these odd data edits for 30 Sept 2005 which resulted in bogus warming of about 20 deg F for a seemingly random assortment of about 20% of the stations in Washington. When contacted in 2007 NCDC admitted these were wildly in error, but could provide no information on how this could possibly have happened. Believe me, I repeatedly asked, but an answer was not forthcoming. Equally alarming was the fact no one else had reported the problem after almost 2 years had elapsed. The cause remains a total mystery today, at least outside of NCDC. I was told by a former NCDC employee, who will forever remain nameless, that the QC software was so hopelessly byzantine that anything was possible!
Here I have captured some of the data from 30 Sept 2005 for all to see. The original or “correct” observation is listed first followed by the QCed or “corrupted” value second:
Observed Max -> QCed Max
Hoquiam AP 58 -> 84
Bellingham 3SW 62 -> 84
Coupeville 1S 61 -> 87
Olga 2SE 63 -> 86
Clearbrook 62 -> 84
Monroe 64 -> 86
Landsburg 62 -> 82
Shelton AP 61 -> 89
Plain 61 -> 82
Satus Pass 2SW 64 -> 80
Harrington 1NW 63 -> 81
Odessa 67 -> 83
Waterville 63 -> 78
Northport 68 -> 84
Spokane WFO 62 -> 81
Yakima No 2 70 -> 85
Yakima AP 72 -> 85
Julian Flood (22:56:31) : “Now I don’t know what the hell is going on with the climate and I don’t believe anyone else does either. ”
We trust those who claim expertise and confidently make dire predictions which are intuitively plausible. They seem to know what they are saying. The expertise to conclusively disprove their hypothesis is unavailable.
‘Global warming’ is just like a religion. At present it is neither provable, nor falsifiable.
It is a compelling opportunity to gain money and influence.
>>At what point do the alarmists drown in the rising
>>seas of auditing, checks and balances and accountability!
And the rest of the ‘naughties’ (2000 – 2010) politics too.
For some reason we have just lived through ten years of ‘virtual politics’, where politicians around the world said things were happening, but it was all spin and mirrors.
Lethal epidemics, financial stability, end of boom and bust, weapons of mass destruction, improving education standards, immigration is good for us, multiculturalism works, global warming.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. The railways are falling apart, standing room only in every tube or metro, the airports suck, the motorways are jammed, gas is running out, electricity is running out, water was running out (until the floods), there are not enough housing units, we cannot produce enough food, 15% are unemployed (if you include the sick), the government is bankrupt, the nation is bankrupt.
It was a decade of political deceit.
For those worried about loss or destruction of US thermometer data, as near as I can tell it is not gone. The “deleted” statement (as I delivered it) has been accompanied by “from the recent” or “from about 1990 on” or some similar qualifier.
The data are retained for periods prior to “the great dying of thermometers” that begins in the late 1980’s but are “deleted” as far as GHCN is concerned. USHCN had a “cut off” in May of 2007 (so GIStemp that used USHCN also had a cut off of those thermometers then). As of just a few weeks ago, GISS put back in the USA thermometers (though they did it by putting in USHCN.v2 that has a greater “adjustment” to it as shown in the blink comparisons posted above).
Similarly, you can find Australian and Russian and Canadian data all being reported… somewhere else! It is just NOAA / NCDC that drops it on the floor and leaves it out of the GHCN (which, as the climategate emails showed, substantially matches the UEA / CRUt data set; and is the basis of GIStemp; and is the core of NCDC Adjusted GHCN, and is used in the Japanese data series, and… just the foundation of all the temperature series that are widley used to predict AGW…) So the “deleted” is not “destroyed” (at least, I hope the various country BOM’s are keeping their originals …) just “removed from the recent part of GHCN”.
That, BTW, is one of my flags for “nefarious stuff is going on”. If it is hard to wrap words around it without lots of qualifiers and lots of “what is is” redefintions, or needing to quote things to show non-standard use like “Unadjusted – adjusted data”: You can pretty much bet there ‘are issues’…
So the “trick” here was to delete cold thermometers from the recent part of the GHCN data set and leave them in the baseline periods. (But not necessarily lose the data for all time from archives… I hope.)
gober (21:55:37) :
An experiment that someone who knows their way round the data might want to do, that would probably be quite quick.
If I was going to take a quick look at the data, with the minimum possible need for adjustments, I would pick a station (stations) with 100 year of raw data. I would then combine them and look for a trend. (Pretty obvious.)
I did basically that in one of my earlier investigations. What I found was that long lived stations had no warming pattern, but short lived stations (most of which were newer) had almost all the warming “signal”. That lead to all the other work that to where I am now. It’s at the bottom of:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
Now if I wanted to fiddle the outcome of even that simple test, and I had the ability to shut down stations, or prevent their data getting into the dataset, I would close or exclude stations that had a long term cooling trend, leaving only “warming” stations.
Yes. I’ve identified a couple of core patterns. One is that anything at altitude gets removed from the recent part of the dataset. For example, Japan now has no thermometer above 300 m. No mountains need apply. Similarly the Andes are deleted (from the recent part of the record).
Then see if there is a difference between the temperature trend of Set A and Set B up to 1985. In other words, is there any sign that the stations to be maintained been pre-selected based on the temperature trend.
It would be interesting to do that. But take a lot of time and effort. Right now I have to split my time between temperature stuff and “making ends meet”, so I only get to put a little time on temperature stuff. But someone with the time could do this fairly easily.
What I did was to look for “indicia of cooling” and see what happened. So you find the average thermometer location moving toward the equator, or away from cold water (as in Morocco where they move away from the coast that has cool water and into the Atlas mountains on the edge of the Sahara).
The most interesting one was Mexico. Took me several days to figure it out. It was rather clever. Thermometer locations leave the mountains, but unlike South America, also moved away from the beach. Didn’t make sense until I looked at a climate zone map of Mexico. They were rising in numbers in what is called the “Megathermal band” … Golly, wonder why 😉 But it is a band toward the middle south of the country that has “big heat”…
The other fascinating one in New Zealand. VERY stable thermometer locations and not much to work with. The “trick” was to delete one cold Island thermometer (from the recent record). IIRC Campbell Island. Take it out of the WHOLE record, and New Zealand does not have any warming…
I have postings up on all of these with code, data, everything open. See the “GIStemp” tab at the top of http://chiefio.wordpress.com and look for the “global analysis” link.
Ref – RexAlan (21:21:10) :
“To Pascvaks
“For want of a better name, let’s call it “The Western World” or “The Second Roman Empire”.
“Sorry it would have to be the “Fourth Roman Empire” as the third Roman Empire was actually the “Third Reich”, Nazi Germany.”
Ref – RexAlan (22:07:07) :
“The second Roman Empire being the Holy Roman Empire 962 to 1806.”
_________________
I think you may possibly be right but my copy of the history, the Official 2010 unabridged and fully corrected version, approved for purchased by the Texas State School Board Approved Text Book Committee, seems to have smoothed those two out of the graph. Don’t see even a blip. The current graph, since 1776, shows a remarkable hockey stick shape. I guess there’s just not much you can trust these days.
Perhaps the potential defendants should have read these documents before making their defamatory remarks in print:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_qc.pdf
About 7000 stations and quality control documented in 1997. Hope Joe’s got deep pockets.
So that’s 7300 stations over 320million square miles, or one thermometer for every 44,000 square miles.