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
Giss..oos! what a bunch of liers you were pals! , but tell me, how do you make it to keep your jobs?
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.
A better indication can be made by looking at raw data from a global spread of individual rural thermometers, but the problem here is that some show that temperature is increasing while others show it has gone down.
This indicates that CO2 is not the main climate driver, because if it was temperatures would be effected everywhere. Natural deterministic chaos is the real cause of climate change, as the Earth’s system adjusts to the constantly varying energy inputs from the exosphere.
=======
What the heck is “natural deterministic chaos”? Is it just a fancy term for “magic” ?
Don’t say that guys! Ravetz’s UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE justifies your data.
“Wren (08:28:31) :
[…]
What the heck is “natural deterministic chaos”? Is it just a fancy term for “magic” ?”
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
“Wren (08:16:04) :
[…]
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.”
Ask yourself this: Would NASA really ditch their own product for such a small difference?
Wren (08:28:31)
What the heck is “natural deterministic chaos”? Is it just a fancy term for “magic” ?
It is the elegant way of saying “I know the f* of nothing about it!”
To know something, as things go now, they gotto be electrical engineers.
This is important. When one examines the claims of the AGW industry, all they really have are their historical temperature estimates and their modeled future climate results.
Given the work of Willis Eschenbach and others regarding how historical raw temperature data is bent and warped – not once, but seemingly every few years – so that raw data that shows temperature trends level or declining for a reporting site is transformed into ever more “threatening” rising temperature trends, then this is the battlefront to end the AGW scam. Show the purported “unprecendented temperature increases” of the last 40 years to be fallacious, and all that’s left to them is the futuristic arm-waving.
All these AGW supporters should be forced to show exactly how they get to their “final” temperature estimates (if they can even find the data), then those approaches being use can be torn apart. And torn apart they will be. There is no way that Darwin, or New Zealand, or however many different results of these manipulations, are even remotely connected to reality. Frankly, right now, I doubt one can say with confidence that the earth is warming at all.
And finally, the map at the head of this article should be banned. For them to be smearing the results of one station over tens of thousands of square kilometers lacking data based on some arbitrary grid is a travesty.
“NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits”
Let’s hope so because Climategate is petering out like a denier in a gerbil wheel..
London, England (CNN) — The UK scientist at the center of the “Climategate” controversy over leaked e-mails has been cleared of hiding or manipulating data by a parliamentary committee.
……..
The Commons report said the leaked emails suggested a “blunt refusal” by Jones to share scientific data but its chairman Phil Willis said there was no evidence that Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science.
“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced,” the report said. “On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.”
Ron Broberg (21:34:11) :
“I guess the skeptics haven’t heard of the lower tropospheric satellite data.”
You mean the UAH satellite data that shows that the troposphere is warming less than the surface? Or do you mean the RSS satellite data that shows that the troposphere is warming more than the UAH satellite data shows, but still less than the surface? Or do you mean the “stratospheric-cooling-adjusted” (Lu et al, 2004) RSS satellite data that shows that the troposphere is warming more faster than the surface, but still not as much as AGW theory predicts that it should? Or do you mean the “climate-model-adjusted” (Mears et al, 2005) RSS satellite data that, by using circular reasoning, shows that the troposphere is warming at least as fast as AGW theory predicts?
Yes, we’ve heard of that satellite data. AGW theory says that the troposphere should warm more than the surface (by a factor of about 1.2). Satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature show exactly the opposite, that the troposphere is warming LESS than the surface. Lu says that, once you factor out the “stratospheric cooling” from the RSS data, the tropospheric warming is (in the tropics at least, but not for the planet as a whole) similar to what the theory says. But, presumably, unless the people that came up with AGW theory are completely incompetent (which I’m beginning to think is the case), they would have factored the effect of stratospheric cooling into their prediction of tropospheric warming, and therefore, Lu is wrong to factor it back out. Mears uses 5 years worth of hourly output from a climate model to adjust the RSS tropospheric temperatures. Not only do we know that all of the climate models are WRONG, we know that they all begin with the assumption that CO2 is the driving force behind global temperature change and that all natural forcings are insignificant. Using this climate model therefore equates to an ASSUMPTION that global warming is man-made. And concluding that the tropospheric temperatures, when compared to surface temperatures, are consistent with AGW theory is equivalent to concluding that AGW theory is true (or at least could be true), or in other words, global warming is man-made. Surprise, surprise! If you ASSUME global warming is man-made, it leads to the CONCLUSION that global warming is man-made. Circular reasoning.
Yeah, Ron, we’ve heard of that satellite data.
Regards,
Trevor
DirkH (08:38:59) :
“Wren (08:28:31) :
[…]
What the heck is “natural deterministic chaos”? Is it just a fancy term for “magic” ?”
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
====
Oh I know what it is, but if globally warming is caused by one butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, I would say that’s magic.
Wren,
Not sure if you recall our conversation on Spencer’s thread a couple weeks back, but I think I might have finally answered that question about the concrete patio. I ramped up the scale to 1000 km2 to make the numbers a little more easy to work with, but for the IPCC sensitivy to CO2 vs. my calculated UHI forcing… the UHI impact was 7.5 times the CO2 impact.
I’m working to get it all written up. It’s an interesting issue!
Wren (08:57:45)
Oh I know what it is, but if globally warming is caused by one butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, I would say that’s magic
What if such butterfly is Ban Ki Moon or “Al Baby”?…big wings indeed!
Yeah, Ron, we’ve heard of that satellite data.
But apparently you haven’t heard of Mears and Wentz who in 2005 found an algebraic error in an earlier analysis which led to a substantial increase in tropospheric warming. They also released their own results indicating a trend of 0.19°C per decade, higher than the surface rate of 0.17°C.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060906101016/www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=60
Trevor (08:53:36) : The maximum possible AIR warming it is 1542.02 times less than surface, considering surface avg.volumetric heat capacity=2.0 joules cm-3 K-1, and if compared with water it is 3227.45 times less.
“” Stephen Skinner (22:21:45) :
KTWO
“Off topic. What is going on with Arctic ice extent?”
Not of topic at all. The Map showing the warming anomaly in the Arctic is obviously correct because warming will increase ice coverage, just as it causes more snow. In fact it’s so warm in Northern Canada that all the ice roads are open.””
So warming causes a build up of Arctic ice and snow? So can I then infer that cooling causes a LOSS of Arctic ice and snow?
We’re through the looking glass, now…
Trevor (08:53:36)
Ron Broberg (21:34:11)
Don’t forget M&M 2007 where they state that a significant % of the warming in the surface temp is due to corruption of the grid averages due to extrapolation of UHI into areas that are not developed.
That is the “spurious” warming Spencer is talking about. UHI is, from a surface temperature viewpoint, very local. From a global viewpoint it should look somewhat similar to this: http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/images/final-images/g-gpw-population-map.gif
But instead the surface temp reconstructions extrapolate UHI to areas where it shouldn’t be seen.
Roughly speaking, the correction of this bad homogenization/extrapolation, appears to put the surface records roughly in alignment with the temperature trends from the satellite records.
…and that has nothing to do with the REAL heating effects from UHI – which my rough estimate puts at .23 W/m2 globally (still working on the write-up but looking for reviewers).
Long term I’m looking to develop a Unified Theory of UHI, which will speak end to end on the macro effects of UHI and the implications for climate science as it exists today in the IPCC analysis.
“Wren (08:57:45) :
[…]
What the heck is “natural deterministic chaos”? Is it just a fancy term for “magic” ?”
[…]
Oh I know what it is, but if globally warming is caused by one butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, I would say that’s magic.”
First you say you don’t know what deterministic chaos is, then you say you know. You’re taking the contrarian attitude a little too far to be believable.
Oh I know what it is, but if globally warming is caused by one butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, I would say that’s magic
Which indicates a lack of appreciation of the distinction between weather and climate. The fact that the weather is chaotic does not imply the climate is. In fact the climate (under the ergodic hypotheses) is insensitive to butterflies.
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.
Good grief. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, however, since there is a minor archaeological expedition of sorts to find and restore Apollo-era films and data: http://www.moonviews.com
I guess NASA isn’t the best at archiving data either. ;->
Paul
Wren (08:57:45)
“Oh I know what it is, but if globally warming is caused by one butterfly in Brazil flapping its wings, I would say that’s magic”
I think you may be a little confused. When DirkH wrote “This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect,” this is just a popular name. I think it was originally intended to dramatise the effect that small changes in initial boundary conditions can have on the generation of storms. It should not be taken as literally true, and chaos theory certainly does not postulate that a butterfly can be responsible for global warming. Still, it’s a common mispercetpion.
“Tom W (09:38:46) :
[…]
The fact that the weather is chaotic does not imply the climate is. In fact the climate (under the ergodic hypotheses) is insensitive to butterflies.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis
“Use caution in assuming ergodic performance when the number of components, N, is large; it is likely that the time to completion will vary as 2^N. For complex biological systems, ergodic performance is seldom possible.
”
I might add that the performance of biological systems is relevant to the development of the climate even though current GCM’s don’t incorporate them (maybe in some parameterized form but surely not as a dynamic simulated entity).
So i think “ergodic” buys you nothing here.
“…The fact that the weather is chaotic does not imply the climate is. In fact the climate (under the ergodic hypotheses) is insensitive to butterflies.”
Actually, Climate is a construct. Weather is what “is” -there’s no getting around it. Climate, on the other hand, is whatever the statistician, activist, capitalist, or paleo-climatologist wants it to be.
Climate is a deconstructionist’s dream come true. Fouccault should have chosen climat science instead of philosophy.
“Actually, Climate is a construct. Weather is what “is” -there’s no getting around it. ”
Yep it’s an average, but so are temperature, pressure and all the rest. In other words so is ‘weather’. The only ‘reality’ is the gazillions of molecules
In other words the claim
Climate is a deconstructionist’s dream come true. Foucault should have chosen climaet science instead of philosophy.
is sheer nonsense.
“Use caution in assuming ergodic performance when the number of components, N, is large; it is likely that the time to completion will vary as 2^N. For complex biological systems, ergodic performance is seldom possible.”
Of course one uses caution…which is why one examines things like stationarity, the autocorrelation function, etc, of atmospheric quantities to determine if it is applicable. Indications are that it is.
There are gazillions of words devoted to the subject
http://books.google.ca/books?id=5QgAfL1N6koC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=climate+ergodicity+autocorrelation&source=bl&ots=-r7lB72NoZ&sig=0_daC7tHO4sK0N5C9GicoJ–73Y&hl=en&ei=souzS_-lO4L_8AbvqdyGBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false