UPDATE: Repaired – see below
What happened to that image? Back in 1999, Dr. James Hansen of NASA penned a report on surface temperatures still located on their servers. However, the critical figure for the report, a GIF image, has mysteriously become garbled. Steve Goddard has the back-story at his blog Real Science: “Data Corruption at GISS”
In 1999, Hansen wrote a report which was largely inconsistent with his current claims. Twelve years ago he understood that the US climate was hotter and more extreme in the 1930s. He also knew that 1934 was the hottest year in the US.
Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit discussed part of the issue with GISS data adjustments back in 2007 with a post here at WUWT, see:
Regardless, help NASA fix this “clerical” error, as the original image exists all over the internet:
UPDATE: Steve Goddard reports that it has been repaired:
It now has the original file date, too. I’d sure like to know who modified the file on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 6:33:14 PM.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TerryS says:
February 15, 2011 at 11:38 am
All is right with the world. The image has now been restored.
========================================================
Except, it’s a different one.
Copied image at the top of this page, 15.6 KB (15,973 bytes)
New image at NASA GISS………………14.5 KB (14,844 bytes)
Now, my eyes aren’t that good to spot any differences in the representations, if there are any, but it are indeed, different files.
You know, I’m at the point of saying “who cares?” It’s NASA GISS after all. They do what they want, say what they want, all while slurping up NSF/DOE/NASA/NOAA money and “stimulus” funds for follies such as the IPCC AR5 and, of course, the manic CAGW press releases. Nothing surprises me with them anymore. But more importantly, I don’t consider them now to be a worthwhile source for climate science information. You know what you’re going to get. And there are many, many other groups out there doing good, honest work – we should defer to them.
GISS is just an amusing side show…
What a strange coincidence that the Central England Temperature record has just been made harder to find…
I must’ve come in late to this discussion, because I just opened the GISS webpage and the old graphic is still there.
steven mosher says:
February 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
fredT says:
February 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
Ryan, you are a ‘real’ academic and yet you think a messed-up graphic on an old web page is redolent of corruption, and deserving of an email barrage to the GISS? This is pathetic.
############
Fred, i’ve been “defended” or rather trying to explain how changes in the data used for the chart made in 1999 and the algorithm used for the chart made in 1999, are responsible for the change. Basically, Hansen used a different algorithm in the 1999 paper and he used different data. Both the quality of the data and the quality of the algorithm improved. Of course the answer is different. And of course Steven and others have not listened to somebody who actually lobbied to have hansens code released. Of course they havent listened to somebody who has read the papers, read the code, and run the code. Having said all that, it disturbs me a bit that NASA is quiet about this. Hansen could well explain the reason far better than I can. But he wont. And now this.
======================================================
Mosh, you’re entirely incorrect in your assertions above. Many of us have listened to you.
We(I can’t speak for anyone else.) I simply reject the notion of a fluid historic reality. It is of no value to publish information as fact, knowing it has a high likelihood of changing in the near future. It is an insidious practice and lends itself to inviting corruption. It shouldn’t be done. It shouldn’t be allowed to be done. It shouldn’t be condoned.> geo says:
>February 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
>
>Bad spot on the disk. Not all that uncommon on images that stick around
>for a long, long time. Somebody emailing them about it might be a bit more
>productive, however.
FWIW – This type of error corrupts the data in a file but does not cause a change to the modification timestamp.
Wow. The power of the blogosphere! They have already ‘fixed’ it:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/original-version-of-the-giss-graph-has-been-restored/#comment-37967
fredb: You are committing the same crime that you allege me to have committed. Did you consider that I am simply Posting something that was written up in Tips and Notes? Did you see anyplace that I said these views represent me? Did you see a “Post by Dr. Ryan N. Maue” in the headline.
I only put up a link to Steve Goddard’s Real Science and — if you compare his post to what I edited — it is pretty tame by comparison.
You can question my academic credentials anonymously if you wish, and use ad hominem attacks to accomplish your goal, but I’d prefer if you applied your sage advice to yourself.
—
My postings here on WUWT are tailored to “media coverage” of climate change and how journalists treat skeptics and alarmists — including the choice of language and political tactics to accomplish their goals.
I have in no place described myself as a Skeptic, denier, or an alarmist. I have not written an op-editorial or been interviewed and asked what my political affiliation is or my stance on marriage or who I voted for — or believe it not, whether I “believe” in global warming or not. But, if you did ask, I would be “agnostic” about climate change — as I would “let the chips fall where they may”. Global warming is a proven fact over the millennia and past hundred years or past 30-years. As an academic, I wish to understand the AGW and natural variability components with the best possible precision (in terms of numbers).
I oppose scientists using their positions at an Institution to push for a particular political point of view. So, just as there is this mythical “separation of church and state” written somewhere in the Constitution, I believe there is a “separation between science and the state media”. Because, in the instances where scientists access and manipulate the media for their own personal political gain or policy goal, the scientific method has been abolished.
funny, FredB, how you are so “offended” by any attempt to point out a problem but not offended in the least by Hansen’s blatant fakery on almost every front.
quite an interesting bit of selective outrage you’ve got there.
fredT says:
February 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
“Ryan, you are a ‘real’ academic and yet you think a messed-up graphic on an old web page is redolent of corruption, and deserving of an email barrage to the GISS? This is pathetic.”
If this was just some isolated incident your comment would be valid. But it is not. It is part of a pattern of ‘errors,’ all of which conveniently support the AGW line.
Are Freds naturally antagonistic towards Ryans?
Ryan accurately quotes other people. Gives accurate brief history of past posts.
Ryan states, “Regardless, help NASA fix this “clerical” error, as the original image exists all over the internet:”
Error gets fixed. Job well done.
Freds…….paraphrasing……”Ryan sucks. How can we reconcile with the warmistas if all of these evil innuendos are being thrown about? How pathetic!!”
WUWT?
fredT says:
February 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
Ryan, you are a ‘real’ academic and yet you think a messed-up graphic on an old web page is redolent of corruption, and deserving of an email barrage to the GISS? This is pathetic.
fredT,
You forgot to put the “/sarc” at the end of your post.
I find that comforting….
In only one decade the data and algorithm changed…
…to give new and improved data historical temperatures
That can only mean two things:
The facts they told a decade ago, were not facts at all….yet they screamed they knew what they were talking about
….or the data and temperatures they provide today should be looked at as suspect because they might decide in 10 more years to use new and improved data and algorithm, and the whole thing changes again
….in only 10 years
Yet they claim they are basing their science on science that is decades old…………
Bob Tisdale says:
February 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I must’ve come in late to this discussion, because I just opened the GISS webpage and the old graphic is still there.
========================================================
Well, it may be only coincidence, But, it was changed in short order after it appeared on WUWT. Maybe it was the first time an e-mail made it to Hansen and/or webmaster. I’ll attribute it to concern over the possible scrutiny WUWT can provide.
fredb says:
February 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Personally I find this posting very offensive in the use of innuendo and implied accusation of deliberate foul play, on the basis of zero evidence. Whereas on the one hand there is the cry for engagement and reconciliation etc., on the other hand there’s this stuff which just serves to alienate and reinforce the polarization.
Poor showing Ryan, is my view.
fredb,
You too forgot to put the “/sarc” at the end of your statement.
Ryan Maue says:
February 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“I oppose scientists using their positions at an Institution to push for a particular political point of view. So, just as there is this mythical separation of church and state written somewhere in the Constitution, I believe there is a separation between science and the state media. Because, in the instances where scientists access and manipulate the media for their own personal political gain or policy goal, the scientific method has been abolished.”
Unfortunately, climate science, as epitomized by the IPCC AR4 report of 2007 and nearly every paper and press release since then, has become a political tool by the activist “greens” of the world, many of whom are climate scientists themselves. In fact, you can see the political spin presented nakedly within supposed academic publications. A great example is the notorious “Climate Change and Trace Gases” by Hansen et al. Here’s the opening paragraph (I have bolded the scare quotes):
“Palaeoclimate data show that the Earth’s climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One feedback, the ‘albedo flip’ property of ice/water, provides a powerful trigger mechanism. A climate forcing that ‘flips’ the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Inertia of ice sheet and ocean provides only moderate delay to ice sheet is integration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures.”
For some extra laughs, please read the last paragraph of the paper where Hansen sings the praises of switchgrass energy!
James sexton.
Well, when the subject is the hsitorical temperature record you’ve got to consider this.
Hansen writes a paper in 1999. He has a dataset and a method. That gives an ESTIMATE of the temp in 1934.
If more data should become available, if bad data is identified, if a problem is found
in the algorithm then we WANT the estimate of the past to be redone.
the issue here is NOT that the estimate changed. the issue is this.
there is no clear TRACEABILITY to the changes that were made and there effects.
if tommorrow NOAA decides to fund the recovery of MILLIONS of records that sit in boxes at NCDC, I want that data to be used. Even if it forces a change in the estimate of the past. If I find a better algorithm, I intend to use it. but in both cases I am duty bound to provide a traceable history of the changes made and the effects of the changes. Hansen hasnt done this. I dont think this lapse on his part MEANS he is corrupt. he’s lazy.
because science doesnt practice the same rigorous methods that engineering does we have these issues. Thats why the global temperature index is not a science question. Its a history question… that uses math
Is the core problem is that there is no defined and stated policy of data audit trail at GISSI.
Solution seems obvious – Legislators should introduce a “Public Data Protection Act” better known as the Don’t touch my history junk” legislation that requires public data on the web to have an audit trail with accessible archived history. Most Wiki pages have it, and we have more storage than we know what to do with. It would be very easy to implement.
Weather is to Climate as data is to dogma.
The former is newsworthy, the latter is fundable.
Mosh,
We’ve been down this road. I understand what you are saying. I heard you the first time you’ve made similar statements. But I’m incredulous that “new” information would be found from 1934. The properties of mercury in a tube were well known, even all the way back in 1934. Again, if the pronounced temperatures are expect to change, why make any pronouncements?
GISS is on record of pronouncing 2010 as the hottest year evuh! But, you and I both know these algorithmic temperatures are subject to change and will likely do so. It is perverse the make proclamations as if they were factual when one knows they aren’t. But let me guess! I predict, in the near future, 2010 is likely to warm. As it gets further from the present, it will cool. And, it may especially cool if another year comes close the same anomalous value.
Honestly Mosh, I’ve no interest in debating this again. The last time there was a debate here on this subject………. well, the conversation devolved. So, in the interest of fairness, I’ll let you have the last word and let it go for now.
James
JoNova has an interesting post about a request for a formal audit of the Australian BOM climate records. Could a similar thing be done in the US?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/#more-13221
AW: A very interesting development in Australia
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/
It looks like BOM is going to go the same way as the New Zealand Met Office
Steven Mosher says: (2:08PM);
“the issue here is NOT that the estimate changed. the issue is this.
there is no clear TRACEABILITY to the changes that were made and there effects.” ……
“because science doesnt practice the same rigorous methods that engineering does we have these issues. Thats why the global temperature index is not a science question. Its a history question… that uses math.”
Thanks for the clarification of how to look at the global temperature index. In the medical device world the FDA would of written up (via a 483) Dr. Hansen for violating software validation principles. There would likely be a bit of a write up for a lack of a justification for the statistical techniques (ie the math) used as well.
Mark Miller.
Almost all of climate science is history.
And yes there would be write ups for violation of software principles.
I look at it this way. The system to control an airplane is quad redundant. Lives are at stake. In the same way climate science is being asked to determine settings for “control” of the climate: set the c02 to 450ppm and hold. Given that huge amounts of money and lives are at stake, we should expect a little more rigor from the science.
And if scientists are not trained in these rigorous methods then they need to do what they have always done. Turn their insights over to engineers who know how to make things that work.
well fine….
Since all of Hansen’s numbers changed after 1999, throw out everything he said prior to that….obviously, since the facts changed and what he said prior was based on those facts
…including everything he said in front of congress in 1988 that started this whole mess
Knowing that the numbers can change like that, who would believe it anyway
and since the real temperatures are not following any of his predictions
the poor guy is looking like the last baffoon………………….