Readers may recall when I pointed out a sensor failure that caused NSIDC’s Arctic ice graph to go haywire. In a similar vein, this essay below appeared as part of a comment on WUWT from reader “Kate”. I have been asked to carry this story before, and I refused. Now that I see it being used to back up arguments, I think it is time to point out how wrong it is. My comments follow after the end of the essay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Satellite Data Fraud
Dr Charles R. Anderson; “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records, and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal “A Catastrophe”.
Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsibility for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.
Anderson, a successful Materials Physicist with his own laboratory, has looked closely at the evidence uncovered on NOAA. He has been astonished to discover, “Both higher altitudes and higher latitudes have been systematically removed from the measured temperature record with very poor and biased interpolated results taking their place.”
Like other esteemed scientists, Anderson has been quick to spot sinister flaws in official temperatures across northern Lake Michigan
The website operated by the Michigan State University published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously comprised.
In his post, “Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable”
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html
Anderson’s findings are that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.
Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”
The Indian Government Knew of Faults in 2004
The Indian government was long ago onto these faults, too. Researcher, Devendra Singh, tried and failed to draw attention to the increasing problems with the satellite as early as 2004 but his paper remained largely ignored outside of his native homeland.
Indian scientist, Singh reported that NOAA-16 started malfunctioning due to a scan motor problem that caused a “barcode” appearance. Singh’s paper, “Performance of the NOAA-16 and AIRS temperature soundings over India” exposed the satellite’s growing faults and identified three key errors that needed to be addressed.
Singh writes, “The first one is the instrument observation error. The second is caused by the differences in the observation time and location between the satellite and radiosonde. The third is sampling error due to atmospheric horizontal inhomogeneity of the field of view (FOV).” These from India thus endorse Dr. Anderson’s findings.
NOAA Proven to have engaged in Long-term Cover Up
Investigations are proving increasingly that such data was flagged by non-NOAA agencies years ago, but NOAA declined to publish notice of the faults until the problem was publicized loudly and widely in the first “Satellitegate” article, “US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced.”
Official explanations initially dismissed the findings, but then NOAA conceded their accuracy in the face of the evidence.
A succession of record warm temperatures in recent years may be based on contaminated satellite readings.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/16/noaa-warmest-january-on-record-in-both-satellite-records/
But NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to clarify the extent of the satellite instrument problem or how long the fault might have gone undetected.
In another article, “Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful”
we saw the smoking gun evidence of a cover up after examining the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary. The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ (NOAA’s admission) since its launch in September 2000.
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/componentStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16&subsystem=4
Subsystem Summary Details Censored Between 2005-10
But even more sinister is the fact that the official online summary now only shows events recorded up to 2005. All subsequent notations, that was on NOAA’s web pages showed entries inclusive to summer 2010 which have now been removed. However, climatechangefraud.com is displaying a sample of the missing evidence copied before NOAA took down the revealing web pages after it entered into “damage limitation” mode.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/images/stories/pics3/2010_Jul04_959EDT.gif
As events have unfolded we are also learning that major systemic failures in the rest of the satellite global data-collecting network were also not reported. Such serious flaws affect up to five U.S satellites as reported in an excellent article by Susan Bohan.
NOAA Tears Up its Own “Data Transparency” Policy
But rather than come clean, NOAA has ordered their lawyers to circle the wagons. Glenn Tallia, their Senior Counselor, wrote “The data and associated website at issue are not NOAA’s but instead are those of the Michigan State Sea Grant program. Thus, we have referred your email to the Michigan State Sea Grant program.”
Yes, Glenn, clearly the final data output was published by Michigan but the underlying fault is with your satellite!
With NOAA now hiding behind their attorneys we appear to see a contradiction of NOAA’s official pledge that ” The basic tenet of physical climate data management at NOAA is full and open data access” published in their document, “NOAA/National Climatic Data Center Open Access to Physical Climate Data Policy December 2009″.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open-access-climate-data-policy.pdf
Sadly, we may now be at the start of yet another protracted delay and concealment process that tarnished NASA’s and CRU’s reputations in Climategate. We saw in that scandal that for 3-7 years the US and the UK government agencies cynically and unlawfully stymied Freedom of Information requests (FOIA).
NASA’s disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia. CRU’s Professor Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution by way of a technicality.
The attorney credited with successfully forcing NASA to come clean was Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
American Physicist Pick Out Key Issues
Meanwhile, back on his blog, Anderson points to the key issues that NOAA tries to cover up. He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the flawed data as being an accidental product of the satellite’s malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.
By contrast, Anderson cogently refutes this explanation showing that such bogus data was consistently of very high temperatures not associated with those detected from cloud tops. He advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favorably hype a doom-saying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.
As Pistis admitted, all such satellite data is fed automatically into records and apparently as long as it showed high enough temperatures to satisfy the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates of those numbers were not going to make careful scrutiny for at least half a decade.
Anderson bemoans, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us. Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record. This sure suggests this is an awkward question to answer.”
Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities
While NOAA’s Nero fiddles ‘Rome’ continues to burn, and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last NOAA-17 became rated ‘poor’ due to “scan motor degradation” while NOAA-18′s gyro’s are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the US twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving “direct readout”(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us – is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?
http://www.ofcm.gov/slso/2008/NSLSOP_Draft_V6.pdf
NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010, NOAA-17 concedes it has “AVHRR Scan Motor Degradation” with “Product(s) or Data Impacted.”
Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, “direct readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.”
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SATS/SPBULL/MSG0502024.01.txt
On August 9 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on ‘poor’ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, “Constant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.”
NOAA continues with tests on ’17′ with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/weather-satellite-reports/message/2352
The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking “urgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.”
More evidence proving NOAA is running a “degrading” satellite network can be read here.
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=15
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anthony: This entire episode got started much like mine – pointing out a problem to NSIDC. Here is the genesis of it, faulty water surface temperatures over Lake Michigan:
This analysis by Dr. Anderson, saying things like “favorably hype a doom-saying agenda” is ridiculous. There’s no cover up. This sensor degradation and failure is normal for the technology. Yes, the temperatures were off, the sensor failed. It happened to NSIDC also.
The only thing that can be said here is that they weren’t watching the output of automated SST product closely enough, which was the same issue with NSIDC when I found them (unknowingly) plotting faulty satellite sounder data. NOAA19 is now online and 100% for the AMSU channels, and many automated sea/ice products are moving to that. If you look at the spacecraft status page:
http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=14
You’ll see this spacecraft was taken offline, after running for 12 years…and as you go through the spacecraft numbers, NOAA 15, 16, 17, 18, through NOAA 19 you’ll see they get progressively better, with NOAA 19 being fully operational, except for a caveat on the humidity sounder for channel H3.
Dr. Anderson The article says: “While NOAA’s Nero fiddles ‘Rome’ continues to burn, and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart.”
Technology fails with age. It’s normal. Just like an automobile losing a battery after 3 years, or needing a new water pump, spacecraft also have failures. Unlike your car, sometimes redundant sensors and systems keep its mission going. Also unlike a car, you just can’t bring it into the shop and ask them to swap in a new AMSU unit in an afternoon.
Despite many requests to carry this story on WUWT, I refused to, because it’s wrongly presented with the cover up angle. There is no fraud here, only simple and expected technological failure compounded by people not catching data errors soon enough.
Quality control is the issue, and yes, there has been a lot sloppy quality control lately at NOAA. For example, see my essay on Nuuk, Greenland and surface temperature.
Further, this data isn’t used in any global temperature calculations that I am aware of, as both UAH and RSS global satellite temperature data sets use different data from different sensors and platforms.
UAH in fact uses a completely different satellite, dubbed AQUA.
Thus the claim of “Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful” is simply false, especially since the well respected UAH global temperature anomaly satellite data set doesn’t even use this satellite.
This sort or essay by the “CO2 insanity” blog on Dr. Anderson does nothing to advance the cause of climate skepticism presented as it is. I suggest ignoring it (the fraud issue), and for skeptical websites carrying it, I suggest you either place a caveat on your posts or delete it. Focus on the quality control issues, get them fixed, then we can have useful arguments over the results of the data. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UAH in fact uses a completely different satellite, dubbed AQUA.
Thus the claim of “Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful” is simply false, especially since the well respected UAH global temperature anomaly satellite data set doesn’t even use this satellite.
Perhaps this article reads a little like a rumor. But the template for spotting problems still may be useful.
When was AQUA launched? 2002
“Satellite designers built Aqua to function on orbit for a minimum of six years.”
1. Have any systems failures or systems degradation been reported on AQUA yet?
2. Is the satellite data is fed automatically into records?
3. Are there any upper parameters set so that 200 degree readings get automatically kicked back? Are there any lower parameters that automatically get flagged?
“UAH in fact uses a completely different satellite, dubbed AQUA.
Thus the claim of “Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful” is simply false, especially since the well respected UAH global temperature anomaly satellite data set doesn’t even use this satellite.”
UAH apparently relies on data from other sources, however. AQUA has not been around for a decade.
The following will seem far O/T but I do have a point:
I recently discovered that many medical labs doing life and death tests and procedures like histology slide staining here in Canada have little if any manditory quality control standards (like simply running controls with your tests) and voluntarily doing Q.C. work that results in extra costs to the system by exposing poor practices can get you transferred to a different part of the lab. This can make a host of different test results run little better than chance. There have actually been scandals and deaths caused by all of this but the real lessons were lost by finger pointing festivals and peeing contests. The media interest only went as far as the emotional aspect of the problem – not the blindingly obvious solutions. And since government liability is limited here, a few scapegoats are enough to end the issue.
My point is that without ensuring that the data is good you don’t have science; you have theatre. What is happening here is not malicious fraud but I don’t know if it is much less morally wrong. Pretending one has done science when one not is not so far from faking data in my mind. Now as with the lab workers, these climate researchers may have no choice as too often the decisions are made by people with neither a shreaders of understanding nor experience in the field – generally a politician or high level political appointee – but in the end, the whole thing is built on illusion and people get hurt. Whether it’s patients with dodgy tests or people losing jobs because of economy killing policies based on dodgy science there can be real consequences to complacency in the face of negligence.
“Technology fails with age. It’s normal.”
Silicon degrades 10% in the first 6 months. After that it’s strictly a haphazard scattering of individual hardware failures. Being out in space obviously accelerates the process. Therefore, someone at the Agency responsible for the data integrity has to keep a regular eye on it. Sensitivity on imaging chips and well capacity is going to be hit hard over time. Degradation does not automatically mean failure, but it should mean that the instrument walks away from calibration on a continuous basis.
I guess humans are about as qualified to do science and run companies and states as they are qualified to drive. As in not at all.
Anthony – I appreciate your correction and caution, however it is the “climate of mistrust” that actually lies at the heart of the problem. I place that climate of mistrust right at the feet of those that sought to operate from within taxpayer funded government organisations and create an exclusive “inside team”, that ridiculed others, withheld data, sought to cover up errors and mishandling of the science, bought pressure to bear on the publication and peer review process, and even went to the extent of creating a team propaganda site which is all that Real Climate can be considered these days.
I my humble view, it is those insiders, that have never apologised or even acknowleged the damage they have done to both Climate Science and the real potential that their activities have wasted billions of research dollars and falsely villified other climate scientists in the process.
When you look back over the past few years and also look at type of misinformation and dismissal of other’s qualified opinion on RC, its hardly surprising that the chickens are now coming home to roost. If those employees appear to act publicly and poorly, it must reflect upon the parent organisations they appear to represent. There needs to be a clearing of the house to get rid of this clique and the influence that they “think” they wield.
Otherwise it remains fertile but contaminated ground, ideal for propagating conspiracy theories so well placed upon their personalities and activities, even though they do not (I hope) represent the vast numbers of good scientists that must be associated with these programs (and resent the public face these guys chose for their own personal gratification).
Recommend a tidy up, hedge trimming, better oversight and supervision and less hyperventilation rather than legal circling of the wagons.
Thanks for a worthwhile post, Anthony. I, too was wondering what was going on and why you were ignoring this issue. The incompetence at NOAA, it has to be said, does look pretty massive.
To Mr. Watts/Spencer/Mo(sher:
Agree. The conspiracy-hunters are a detriment to those seeing “truth” (to the James-Pierce extent). Yet look at the NOAA/GISS temperatures of the world a la Greenland showing 2010 temps being the warmest on record and see that they are a) only for part of the year, b) disconnected from 2009. There are a LOT of them on-line, not just for Greenland. You would be hard-pressed not to see an agenda in having them presented. Personlly, I think that conspiracies on an organizational level are impossible at the level of global climate. But on an individual level they are not just possible but probable. The problem is in differentiating the Jim Schmuck from Jim Hansen. Incompetence, from my experience, is less likely to show up than personal agendas or professional needs/beliefs.
Now that the internet is here, the individual is able to have a disproportiate impact on the collective mind. Of course, that is as true of Hansen as of my minimal figure, Jim Schmuck. We are the potential victims of both kinds. The personal responsibility to decide issues for ourselves has never been so important as we hear both distorted sides of the same issue.
Once again, another issue clarified in a sensible manner. I’d also heard the “cover up” story but found many websites not carrying it due to “sensationalist” issues without evidence. Climategate wasn’t one of those because it had evidence – and plenty of it.
Thanks Anthony.
This episode again highlights one thing.
The task of reading, recording and publishing climate data MUST be seperated from the task of analysis, which in turn must be seperated from the task of policy formation.
The first task must be carried our by persons with a great DISINTEREST in analysis and policy, but who are fanatical about the task of ensuring accuracy and validity.
NOAA, GIS, IPCC, all othere government agencies, university researchers and we critics must assign themselves and ourselves to ONLY one of these three vital tasks.
They and we MUST be DISINTERESTED in the other two tasks.
We will continue to go down the (tax) gurgler at a faster and faster rate until that split up in function is done.
Fat chance, you may say.
You may well say that!
But I could never say that, I’m afraid.
Anthony, it’s not the crap data, it’s the lack of scientific responsibility. Under the same circumstances, ask yourself what you would have done? You’re no different than most scientists. NOAA has engaged repeatedly in activism with regard to global climate disruption change warming. If it had remained a non-biased provider of data, one might be inclined to let it slide. However, NOAA has turned to advocacy to promote only one side of the story. Would you agree with me that there is more than one side? I think so. As such the intent of the agency and its scientists is clear. Promote CAGW at every opportunity. Why would you believe me? I’m not asking you to. Spend some time at http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html Search on polar bears. When you find the propaganda on how to convince a denier that the polar bears are disappearing and the lesson plans on sustainability written by Mel Goodwin, a marine biologist by training and former sustainability consultant with The Rockefeller Brothers Fund creators of The Climate Group) you’ll realize that NOAA has become an advocacy group.
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/edufun/book/WherePolarBears.pdf
It doesn’t stop there. The scientists may be incompetent, Anthony, but they are advocates for CAGW. When the rank and file start throwing out the advocates, maybe NOAA will be useful for more than a radar shot of your local weather. NOAA is due for a serious house cleaning. Former AAAS President and CAGW promoter Lubchenco is a big part of the problem at NOAA and a good place to start.
What I got from this is: The climate models are getting really bad input which they are able to faithfully replicate. Hmmmm, I think I see a problem here.
What exactly are they able to replicate? Anything? Is there an exception to GIGO?
I disagree with Mr. Watts here.
Intentional cover-up of errors, even if errors were initially unintentional, is malice.
Considering the amount of tax money thrown into the government-financed Green Scientology, it is a crime.
To those elsewhere who have attacked Anthony’s character: His public post of his disagreement with a skeptical article containing what he thinks are errors shows all of us the importance of the love of truth rather than the love of whatever propaganda serves one’s argument. Many thanks to Anthony for so much hard work conducted so honestly.
So this data stream failure has been known since 2004, which poses the question, ‘when exactly did these failures start’? I am afraid that Anthony is being too fair. Data failures known for over 6 years, and covered up for whatever so called reasonable reason is covered by the ‘F’ word. NOAA receives billions of dollars from the US government and it must ensure that data it uses to drive government policy is correct and if problems are found then it must say so. In UK law you are guilty if you do not mention a fact- it is called perverting the course of justice. I am sure the US has a similar law.
If I go to a shop, and half the time I am overcharged, and half the time I am undercharged I suspect incompetence. If the errors are always overcharge I suspect it is on purpose.
If I have to roll something into production and I present the state of the system I am taking responsibility for that presentation. If that presentation is incorrect it really does not matter if the system was incapable of the accuracy I was presenting it as – I would be expected to present the tolerance. If I just give somebody access to the data then it comes down to my understanding of the data. It would not be appropriate to give somebody data I knew to be inaccurate without stating that – frankly that would feel like setting them a trap to look incompetent.
The benefit of the doubt is all very well as long as it does not take away the need to take responsibility. If the data errors had demonstrated a cooling trend would they have been handled in the same way? If the answer is no then the benefit of the doubt is misguided.
Bringing in the lawyers is an extreme defensive response not to be taken lightly. It certainly further adds fuel to the the suspicion of guilt fire. And as usual we don’t have all the answers so sadly that leads more people down the conspiracy theory path as well.
Was that ex post facto incompetence too?
Nevertheless, I applaud your even handed approach Anthony.
So, ” we the people” are paying lawyers to help incompetent government employees attempt to hide their incompetencies and continue to refuse to fully reveal the extent and causes of their failures to provide accurate information from government systems they were operating for that purpose?
Substitute “we the people” for “stock holders” and try something like that as a CEO; particularly in the current political environment.
I can’t call the actions of NOAA personnel “fraud”, but they wouldn’t want me on their jury should they ever come to trial. Any competent prosecutor could make the case.
I have worked at relativity high positions in both governmental agencies and private industry as a professional civil engineer.
Once upon a time, before huge government grants were so involved, there seemed to be far more people who had personal ethics. As the funding by government and special interests grew, the number of people practicing a high level of personal ethics shrank. Keeping a good paying job with lots of benefits has a high priority for the vast majority of people. “Scientists” are hardly other than human, and are as apt to become corrupt for money and job security as any other humans.
Perhaps, being an old man now, and as I always had a great sense of personal ethics, and not having, for a long time now any “belief system” at all, and not having an ego that requires living visibly “high on the hog”, I am more critical of what I would label corruption than a good many others.
Too, I can understand the feelings of those “honest” scientists who fear that they (scientists in general) will become stigmatized by the acts of a good many who have been living “high on the hog” at public expense.
Anthony has done fine work in exposing the problems regarding how “climate science” has been gone about, and in exposing the large uncertainties involved, and I am sure, doesn’t want his fine work to devolve to a peeing or mud throwing contest, so I say, good approach, Anthony. The only way we can win the battle before us in our search for as close to truth as we can get is to focus on the science involved, and better educate more people in the fundamentals of chemistry, physics, and mathematics.
This is a wonderful site to hear arguments, both pro and con, about the “changing climate” issues, and to either brush up on science, or learn even more about science. Once again, thank you, Anthony.
Glenn said: (October 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm)
However, Dr. Spencer writes:
A general discussion of the AMSU instrumentation may be found at his site.
Maybe you should clarify something.
UAH just recently started using AQUA. I did not know RSS was using it yet.
When were which satellites being used by which units and what periods of time would have been affected. If UAH or RSS NEVER used the malfunctioning satellites this should be made clear. If they used them for specific periods this also should be made clear along with whatever may have been done to “adjust” for the degradation.
I agree that we do not need hysterical claims of the record being completely unuseable if not true, BUT, this story does NOT clarify the issue due to lack of information.
Maybe a timeline could be published showing who used which satellites during what periods of time and when the specific satellites were suffering degradation or malfunctions?
Never underestimate the employee playing Farmvile at work.
I have first hand witnessed a major cock up happening while a guy was playing AND updating a server…
The mercury in my old thermometer hasn’t degraded with the passing of the last 25 years. It cost next to nothing and I reckon it’ll be accurate for many years to come with close to zero maintenance or calibration.
Spot on post tho.
Larry says:
October 5, 2010 at 3:22 am (Edit)
If I go to a shop, and half the time I am overcharged, and half the time I am undercharged I suspect incompetence. If the errors are always overcharge I suspect it is on purpose.
#####
spencer has documented all the changes, both positive and negative
Very Good Post 🙂