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.
Mosher said…
“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.”
Hey something we can agree on! 😉 Completely!
Latitude says:
February 15, 2011 at 3:17 pm
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
========================================================
Yeh, all prior work is invalidated,………. by himself. Yet, people act as if there is validity to his statements……go figure. How many studies did he produce using errant data?
How convenient this (a ‘bad spot’) can be claimed in light of:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/#comment-37905
So, (1) ‘new’ file constructed, (2) uploaded to server and (3) served up on the web …
(1) had the flawed process, not* (2) or (3).
*Not (2) for the same reason not (1) (See “The Iconoclast” reasoning in light of his findings above re: gif file contents)
.
Correction:
*Not (2) for the same reason not (3) (See “The Iconoclast” reasoning in light of his findings above re: gif file contents)
To those who think this is an accident – a challenge. Find an example of another similarly corrupted but valid gif image on the web. Good luck with that.
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.
Engagement and reconciliation are being pushed by some people, as though salving or preventing the abrasions of personality conflicts has anything at all to do with the alleged CO2=CAGW Climate Science issues; instead of solving the real problem by simply pushing for Climate Science to adhere to the scientific method and its principles.
Certainly by now, what is so difficult about understanding where the real problem is, and why aren’t you personally offended by that critical failure of Climate Science?
Some days ago during the blizzards I went onto the nws.noaa.gov website to view some kind of a map showing the latest national observed temperatures and colored temperature gradients. I was surprised to discover only the forecast temperqature maps were to be found with some effort, despite the record low temperatures in places like Oklahoma. Is this normal, or has NOAA taken to burying those maps in difficult to find locations on the website?
Ryan shouldn’t have even linked to Goddard’s blog. If you really wanted to discuss this non-story just write it from scratch without reference to the usual ludicrous conspiracy theories Goddard pushes for.
The whole thing about a gif image on a website breaking is ridiculously petty in my opinion. I can’t for the life of me figure how that image can be so important, nor how a conspiracy involving it’s deletion would make sense. Couldn’t we always go and download the Hansen 1999 paper that has the graphic in it anyway?
All the allegations against Hansen are like this. Wrong, flawed, or irrelevant. If I had a penny for everytime someone defended a single such accusation aimed at Hansen by insisting that the actual case was the sum of all the “other things” he had been accused of, I’d be rich. There’s not one good argument against Hansen’s science, just a load of little wrong, flawed or irrelevant talking points that collate in people’s minds.
Quite a few on this thead in fact. Such as the claim made by one commenter that Hansen proclaimed the 1999 graph as “fact”. He never did. The yearly values in the record have always been subject to uncertainty. It’s not fixed in stone and never has been presented as such.
The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.
All of this is a good argument for hard copy printed material.
I can go to my library and pull old temp records in bound books and know, right or wrong, that is what was published in the ‘old days’.
Electronic publishing is very tricky.
Opens up all kinds of opportunity for mischief.
onion2 says:
“The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.”
You forgot: /sarc
Goddard of course does what Goddard will do, and he has found the fan base he deserves over there. What Ryan’s post and many responses here prove is that WUWT is little better.
An old web page gets garbled for a few days, and “Conspiracy!” shouts the crowd.
[Reply: If you’re so unhappy here you can simply move on. ~dbs, mod.]
steven mosher says:
February 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
“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.”
This is a classic case of a Red Herring. The issue is not what data and code Hansen used or why they were changed. The issue is that at one time Hansen published his belief that 1934 was the warmest year on record in the USA and at a later time he published the denial of that belief, holding that some other year was the warmest. As a scientist, he has to explain why he has rejected earlier beliefs and now considers them false. References to different data sets and different code are merely excuses and do not address the fundamental scientific question of why Hansen changed his belief about 1934. That is what needs explaining and that is what a scrupulously honest scientist must address.
onion2 says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.”
The differences between the two graphs are significant . To me, this means that at least one of the graphs is crap or both graphs are crap. Knowing that we don’t really a handle on UHI and bad station siting, I don’t have confidence in either graph. Maybe the surface station project will give us a better picture when it comes to fruition.
@steven mosher
the issue is this.
there is no clear TRACEABILITY to the changes that were made and there effects.
if tomorrow 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 hasn’t done this. I don’t think this lapse on his part MEANS he is corrupt. he’s lazy.
Yup. Exactly — accountability.
onion2 says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
blather, blather, bs…bs….more blather, unsubstantiated blathering……bs about pennies …..
But, if it were taken down, this, http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355&h=355 wouldn’t be as easy to follow.
Algorithm or not. Malfeasance or not. This is what happened. It stays.
@onion2
All the allegations against Hansen are like this. Wrong, flawed, or irrelevant.
Whoa, boy, hold them horses back before they trample some old ladies crossing the street. Over generalization will get you nowhere fast.
onion2 says:
“The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.”
========================================================
Yeh, ’cause the mercury is moving up and down so much in the past. Why just the other day mercury went up so fast it broke through the thermometer 77 years ago. Orwellian.
onion2 says:
“The yearly values in the record have always been subject to uncertainty. It’s not fixed in stone and never has been presented as such.”
========================================================
Ooooookaaaaay, that’s good to hear. All historical temp values are subjective and as being such, we should change the earth’s entire socioeconomic structure, spend trillions of dollars, loose our autonomy, surrender liberties and starve a few poor bastards on the way. Because we know we’re getting hotter based on the temp record we know is crap. I love the logic. Malthusian.
Gneiss says:
February 15, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Goddard of course does what Goddard will do, and he has found the fan base he deserves over there. What Ryan’s post and many responses here prove is that WUWT is little better.
An old web page gets garbled for a few days, and “Conspiracy!” shouts the crowd.
=======================================================
lol, in your alternate reality I suppose that could be true. Here’s something fun to do. On your keyboard, keystroke Alt+f. Type in the word conspiracy. You and Onion are the only ones to use the word here. Oh, on Goddard’s site? After compiling all the times Goddard used the word conspiracy or a variant and all of 49 posts in his thread, I come up with a grand total of ……………..once.
“Before anybody gets too deep into conspiracy theories, I’d just like to point out that …..” On the bottom of a 49 comment thread, an admonishment not to jump to a conspiracy theory.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/#comment-37905
But I do like the misinformation campaign. Believe it or not there are some that would like a genuine dialog with warmists. You show to be the perfect example of why skeptics shouldn’t. Go find some scruples, some skeptics may dialogue with you after that.
onion2 says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“All the allegations against Hansen are like this. Wrong, flawed, or irrelevant. If I had a penny for everytime someone defended a single such accusation aimed at Hansen by insisting that the actual case was the sum of all the “other things” he had been accused of, I’d be rich. There’s not one good argument against Hansen’s science, just a load of little wrong, flawed or irrelevant talking points that collate in people’s minds.”
You are not holding Hansen to the standards appropriate to science. At one time, he said he believed that 1934 was the warmest year in the last 100 for the USA. At a later time he denied that belief. It is his responsibility to give a full accounting of why he came to deny his earlier belief. Part of the accounting might be that he once believed the data set on the older graph but later came to believe that it is in error. He must give a reasoned explanation of this. That might be all the accounting he would give, but it might not. There might be other reasons that he now denies an earlier belief.
“Quite a few on this thead in fact. Such as the claim made by one commenter that Hansen proclaimed the 1999 graph as “fact”. He never did. The yearly values in the record have always been subject to uncertainty. It’s not fixed in stone and never has been presented as such.”
How much uncertainty? Enough to make them indistinguishable from the later set that shows that 1934 is not the warmest year? If so, why publish the change at all? Why deny his earlier belief? Why not publish the uncertainty? We are not used car buyers here. We expect science as practiced by scrupulously honest scientists and we will accept no less. It is time to step up to the plate, Mr. Hansen. Give a full accounting of yourself as scientist.
If anyone wants to see how the records have been changed, this is the actual data.
The 1930s have been adjusted down by 0.15C and,
1999 has been adusted up by 0.35C.
So the trend has been adjusted upward by 0.5C.
Obviously the people who were measuring the temperature in the 1930s did not know what they were doing. But worse than that, the people who were measuring the temperature just 11 years ago were quite blind and we need to change their measurements by 0.35C.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3259/gistempuschanges11years.png
James Sexton writes,
“lol, in your alternate reality I suppose that could be true.”
My alternate reality largely overlaps with the real reality, where that could also be true.
Ryan Maue posts,
“ the critical figure for the report, a GIF image, has mysteriously become garbled. Steve Goddard has the back-story at his blog ….
help NASA fix this “clerical” error, as the original image exists all over the internet”
Al Gored says:
“This seems to be a “smoking gun” that anyone can understand.”
Latitude says:
“was this a trick to hide the decline ..
..or just a travesty”
KGuy says:
“Are NASA hoping that we’ll forget the graphic ever existed?
Do they think that by removing it from their site, that we will no longer remember it?”
Mosher says:
“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.”
Jim says:
“How convenient this (a ‘bad spot’) can be claimed in light of: ….
There is zero chance that the new figure was accidentally corrupted:”
Ian H says:
“To those who think this is an accident a challenge. Find an example of another similarly corrupted but valid gif image on the web. Good luck with that.”
kramer says:
“What a strange coincidence that the Central England Temperature record has just been made harder to find”
Jack Simmons says:
“Electronic publishing is very tricky.
Opens up all kinds of opportunity for mischief.”
Theo Goodwin says:
February 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm
“………..It is time to step up to the plate, Mr. Hansen. Give a full accounting of yourself as scientist.”
========================================================
Well, it has been a few years. I think it safe to say he won’t. BTW, an excellent wording of a few issues brought up about GISS and Hansen. Again.
To be redundant, I still cannot fathom how people believe history should be fluid. Or that how if they recognize the fluidity that they would lend credence to the fluid temps. The statement, “2010 was the hottest year ever! But subject to change.” This expresses two contrary and conflicting thoughts. It the values of 2010 changes and is expected to change then one doesn’t know if it was indeed hottest or not. “2010 was the hottest year ever!” This is a declarative statement. It is a statement of certitude. It isn’t compatible with stating, in the next breath, “the values of 2010 temps will change.” And, then to have people not apologize for this Orwellian thinking, but come and defend this concept and the person behind it…..????!!!!!
onion2 says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“There’s not one good argument against Hansen’s science, just a load of little wrong, flawed or irrelevant talking points that collate in people’s minds.
Quite a few on this thead in fact. Such as the claim made by one commenter that Hansen proclaimed the 1999 graph as “fact”. He never did. The yearly values in the record have always been subject to uncertainty. It’s not fixed in stone and never has been presented as such.
The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.”
Orion2
I am only now trying to gain an understanding of the science of climate change. I am not qualified to question the the assumptions in the science. I do have some qualifications in analytical chemistry, systems development, quality engineering, economics and technology management. My professional career was mostly in regulated environments so I am used to having folks ask me about the assumptions behind the models (algorithms) and specifications I developed and used to ensure product performance in the field. It’s been awhile since I have had to delve into complex, noisy, process(es) to figure out cause and effect (and what I can personally do about it in a cost effective manner).
I my old world I was confident enough in the measurement systems that I used (as I ran gauge R&R’s on them and verified their calibration daily) to have a very good estimate of average system output (or my point estimate) when I reported it. My point estimate, average system response, (blood glucose level in my world, or say Temperature Anomaly in the graphs noted above) was always reported with the corresponding SD. I take it the SD in the Temperature Anomaly data is reported somewhere- I would suggest having it included in the graphs above as it would clear up a lot concern about how noisy the estimates are.
I don’t think anyone would have any issues with updating a graph like the ones presented above as new data comes in. The problem as Steven stated above “is 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.”
The reason the FDA required those of us in the regulated medical device industry to document our changes was to make sure that the information was reviewed, approved and evaluated for it’s effect on other systems that used the data as an input in their models, assumptions, etc…
Onion2;
1. Being a paranoid conspiracist does not eliminate the possibility that there is a conspiracy and they are out to get you. A mountain of pebbles is still a mountain. The number of allegations against Hansen are many, and they are a mountain of pebbles only because he takes great care to ensure that direct comparisons of his science are never possible, leaving only a mountain of details behind that don’t add up. Still a mountain, and all it would take is full, complete, detailed disclosure to discredit the mountain of pebbles and set the record straight in his favour. Yet he doesn’t. Odd that.
2. The very essence of the accusation against Hansen that the mountain of pebbles suggests is, in fact, that he is manipulating the past. I too think that a giff going bad is no cause for alarm and a more likely event than many would suppose. Large financial databases have multiple levels of error checking and correction to protect against things as unlikely as a cosmic ray striking a hard disk drive and flipping a single bit from a 0 to 1 or a 1 to 0. Sound like science fiction? It isn’t, it happens. I doubt that the hard disk on which that original giff was stored had anywhere near the level of ECC that VISA uses to make certain your statement is correct. Hard drives get corrupted. Period.
BUT – it is a pebble, and it looks like a lot of other pebbles that make a mountain. Hansen keeps updating the big picture with new graphs based on new algorithyms based on new research. And despite all the new algorithyms and new research, the result is consistant. The present and recent few decades change hardly at all. But the temperature rise in the thirties keeps getting smaller, and the earliest parts of the graph, the late 1800’s keep getting colder. I’m not the first to have noticed this. Hansen’s explanations of why are obscure obfuscation at best. And each time he gets away with it, he calculates a new slope and claims that warming is accelerating.
Odd that all his new research and new algorithyms change the near term record, which is the most scrutinized because we are living in it, the least, and the past, which few pay much attention to, the most. There’s no new data from the 1880’s to the 1980’s that I know of. Do you know of some that has been added in recently to the temperature record? No? So all the changes are driven by new alorithyms then? OK, let’s ask the obvious question.
Why is it that the new algorithyms which supposedly correct the raw data for UHI, result in the least change for the near term where UHI is the highest and the most change, to the negative, where we have the least influence of UHI on the data in the first place?
The chart is another pebble that may be of different extraction than the rest of the mountain, but it does sit atop a mountain of pebbles that look the same.