By Blake Snow – FOXNews.com
Image: NASA / Goddard Institute for Space Studies – Maps from NASA’s GISS reveal temperatures where no data exist, thanks to mathematical extrapolation of data.
NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.
“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”
…
Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.
…
Neither NASA nor NOAA responded to requests for comment. But Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn’t match. “I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data,” he says. “Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU.”
Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
“It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury,” Masters adds. “All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well.”
But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.
In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.
Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government’s] old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”
Read the entire story at Fox News.com
Experiment:
Plant 100 seed plots fairly well distributed and started at the same time. Subject to various weather conditions. Assign people walking by to take daily data, accounting for various times when lunch and naps got in the way of taking the noon measures, etc. 2/3 rds of the way into the experiment, remove most of the plots, especially from areas exposed to weather and away from research buildings and warm air vents. Leave the rest non-randomly scattered and add a few more for good measure next to the main parking lot next to the research facility. Continue to take data. Report results as if all plots still remained. Package seed and sell to farmers as a new and improved robust seed guaranteed to grow in all weather conditions. Prepare for tar and feathers.
… or a hockeystick.
is anyone able to overlay these GISS/NASA map protections onto a 3D sphere? this would go a long way in correcting the polar distortions of the Mercator map projection they use that can only confuse those who will think that the poles take up half the planet
FYI -Can’t open the carbon trading article…
Ron Broberg (21:34:11) :
“em.Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.
I guess the skeptics haven’t heard of the lower tropospheric satellite data.”
The debate is not, and never has been about whether or not the planet is getting warmer. It has always been about the warming influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 and whether or not it presents a crisis.
Nearly everyone agrees that the lower atmosphere is a little warmer now than it was 200 years ago, and anyone with any sense agrees that it is generally a good thing.
‘Global warming skeptic’ is a misnomer. A more accurate title would be ‘Anthropogenic global warming crisis skeptic’, but that is such a mouthful that hardly anyone uses it. Another name I like for us skeptics is ‘Climate Realists’, because we acknowledge the mounds of evidence that indicate global climate is always warming or cooling, that we don’t know all the reasons why this happens, and can not accurately model it, and we look at all the evidence and consider all the explanations.
In contrast, the AGW fear mongers have tried to erase our variable past climate, believe we know how to model climate with extreme accuracy, ignore the data they don’t like and augment the data they do to make it more alarming, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that there could be any other explanation than their pet theory for warming, even when the evidence supports other explanations very well and there theory hardly at all.
OT
trying to use the explorer instead of mozila, i blundered into :
http://whatsupwiththat.com/
which seems to be another climate board !
I’m with Anna V I can’t get the latest post
[Reply: Working with WordPress to resolve the problem. The article comes up here, but comments are disabled. ~dbs]
Layne Blanchard (06:25:11) :
FYI -Can’t open the carbon trading article…
Same here, need to know how to pay for 24hr running of central heating due to unprecedented levels of snow on first day of summer.
GISS records and data are sloppy? Hansen is very busy evangelizing for the carbon movement. He is trying to get fired because he is not staying on task.
We need Hansen and his terror sermons to prop up Carbon trading prices. The carbon trading thread is not working.
as of 9:52 Eastern, the carbon trading article still comes up “not found” with a search box. Just fyi. feel free to delete.
“anna v (06:31:38) :
OT
trying to use the explorer instead of mozila, i blundered into :
http://whatsupwiththat.com/
which seems to be another climate board !”
No, it’s a simple domain name squatter.
The ‘integrity’ of the data is based on the “INTEGRITY” of the organizations and people who work it and prepare/publish reports for the public and other Scientists ($cienti$t$ couldn’t care less about ‘integrity’ in anything).
NASA, GISS, NOAA, NCDC, UEA, CRU, (not to mention the Ol’ MET Office) have all suffered fatal blows to their INTEGRITY and the ‘integrity’ of their data and reports. No argument, no assertion, no rebuttal, no nothing, is going to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
It’s time to break down everthing, wash and disinfect the whole works, hire new fresh untainted people, create a new organization, under someone of impecable integrity and without a political or social agenda. The old “data” may still be good; let them check it. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll earn the public’s trust.
Have to start over when ‘INTEGRITY’ is compromised!
D. King (00:53:50) :
“Not to worry, NASA is on the Toyota space ray acceleration problem.”
I read that too!
Of course it would be more appropriate to say that
“NASA is looking at the problem the PRIUS has with Cosmic Rays..”
….what ???
Svensmark’s cosmic rays destroying the Green wonder-car of the elite????
So it wasnt AGW ? Hmmmm…
Tenuc (01:19:06) : The amalgamated data sets like GISS and CRU are not suitable for the job of producing a temperature anomaly of a fraction of a degree. {…} This indicates that CO2 is not the main climate driver, because if it was temperatures would be effected everywhere.
Exactly! While the satellite temps move the same way the surface stations seem to, they don’t measure the same thing, it can never be an apples to apples match. Further, with the surface stations in the condition they are in, there is no way we know the temperature to within 2-4°C, let alone a fraction of a degree. Looking at what is done with the raw data, it is easy to see how the globe is actually cooling while AGW grasshoppers play the same song of eternal warming.
(grasshopper is an allusion to the ant/grasshopper fable)
I’m not on a mobile, and the other article, Carbon emissionaries, is linked to “?p=17961”.
For those of you that want to start making ice cubes with your microwave at home, PLEASE DON’T!! You’re not qualified! Instead, have a certified, peer reviewed NASA or CRU scientist come over and execute the procedure for you. If I may, I do not recommend pouring your favorite scotch or shaking a martini with these “ice cubes” after they are presented to you. These “ice cubes” are best used for cooling down your tea or coffee.
Wondering Aloud (06:34:25) :
I’m with Anna V I can’t get the latest post
[Reply: Working with WordPress to resolve the problem. The article comes up here, but comments are disabled. ~dbs]
There’s an actual article there? I thought the 404 “Sorry, you’re looking for something that doesn’t exist” was a not-so-subtle snark at the MSM
Fox: Obama to sign new CO2 restrictions by executive order; doesn’t care about economic damage!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483770/posts
Mike Haseler (05:57:33) :
pat: “NASA has turned into a reflection of college campuses all across the world. Bizarre left wingers pretending to do real work while sucking on the tax payers teats. Fake science, fake brains.”
You forgot to mention academics in their ivory towers pontificating about things they have no practical experience of. Like researchers who haven’t a clue about practical temperature measurement and the real bias of human gathered data.
A blogbuddy said this a few days back: “ ‘Academic freedom’ is a myth of epic proportions carefully promulgated as fact by Academicians. This allows them easier access to the wallets of people who want to believe that university campuses will tolerate free thinking, free speech, and open dialogue.”
Kinda fits the Climatological Community, too…
Tenuc (01:19:06) : The amalgamated data sets like GISS and CRU are not suitable for the job of producing a temperature anomaly of a fraction of a degree. {…} This indicates that CO2 is not the main climate driver, because if it was temperatures would be effected everywhere.
==================
That may not be entirely accurate. Since the effects of CO2 are limited in areas in which the atmosphere is already saturated with water vapor (or vapour if you prefer) you may not see an effect from increased CO2 in those areas (tropics) as much as you would in areas where there is not as much water vapor (poles/deserts). The fact that, since CO2 is considered a ‘well mixed’ gas atmospherically, the temps in Antarctica are not showing any significant increase is one reason that I tend to think CO2 is not the driver.
The data can really be worse. Remember the Hubble Space telescope mirror error which made its images blurry? What a fiasco!!
And on the subject of climate remember the farce of the Mars Climate Orbiter which crash landed or got burnt up on Mars instead of orbiting all because of a simple mathematical error – A mix-up over converting acceleration figures from English to metric measurements meant the craft probably got too close to Mars. See more disasters from NASA.
So, I really can beleive the words: “NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits”
Would NASA allow in the kind of data issues we have had from GISS, CRU and rely on this kind of data to put men and women in space suits and send them to the Moon? Would you fly in a plane which had the GISS / CRU fudging and extrapolation of data? Of course not but then this isn’t science its advocacy.
Robert E. Phelan (22:53:25) :
Wren (22:04:34) :
“NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits”
Is that what NASA said?
Well no, but it’s a catchy headline.
FoxNews is shameless
Tell me, Wren, what is incorrect about the headline? Ruedy admitted that the NCDC and CRU data was better than GISS, which is another way of saying that GISS data is not as good as NCDC or CRU data, or in non-pejorative terms, NCDC and CRU are a bit better, GISS is a little worse.
Well, at least you can attribute your dizzy perspective on all that spinning you do, which of course, is a kind of spin all on its own.
====
What’s inaccurate about the headline is Ruedy did not say “NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data.”
Suppose I score 99 on a 100 question test and you score 98. If FoxNews didn’t like us, it might report you did worse than me without reference to our scores.
Why are comments off in “Carbon Emissionaries”?
Ecotretas
Article Alert:
Note: I said “article alert” as I’ll leave it up the the reader as to whether it is “news.”
FWIW, a BBC piece where someone like Lovelock essentially says “We are not in control, we cannot have control, we should give up trying and just ride it out” is something I greet as “cheering news.”