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.
Gneiss says:
February 15, 2011 at 7:55 pm
James Sexton writes,
“lol, in your alternate reality I suppose that could be true.”
========================================================
Gneiss, how is it that you can read these posts but not the pertinent ones? And how is it that you don’t understand what you’re reading.
Are you actually quoting Mosh as being a conspirator theorist towards GISS? Read up the thread or read past posts. Steve Mosher has ardently defended GISS and their methods.
Latitude says:
“was this a trick to hide the decline ..
..or just a travesty”
Can you not discern derisive sarcasm from a conspiracy theory?
When kramer says: “What a strange coincidence …” It was indeed, a strange coincidence. I could go on, but you get the point,…….. I hope.
More…….what is now known…….. A different .gif file was placed on the web page. (See Steve Goddard’s “back story” to understand how we know this. The link is provided above.) It showed the image seen at the top of this thread. As Anthony likes to state often,……paraphrasing, “never ascribe to malfeasance what can easily be explained by incompetence”, and this is true. However, the incidents of gross incompetence by many people and agencies of the warmist agenda is, in my estimation, beyond believable. Many instances are documented here. Take the time and run through the archives. These are suppose to be our best and brightest! So, ok, they get yet once again, another mulligan. Someone replaced the image file with another on a web page. But they didn’t bother to see how it rendered …. I wonder what it was suppose to render?
I’ll take the category “Computer Advancements” for $200 Alex …
What is a pre-Watson model ?
.
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.
Seriously, onion2, how do you let yourself get away with answering a legion of valid criticisms of GISS’s methods by means of an infantile whine?
Thus is not a case of accidental data corruption. The header of the file was modified with a different (legal) set of parameters in January. That doesn’t happen by accident.
But it is always entertaining seeing people defend GISS. 1934 was hotter before it was cooler.
Incompetence is H0, malice is H1. Under H0, errors are equally distributed on an anti/pro-AGW speculation axis. Findings: all errors are on the pro-AGW side. H0 is rejected with 10 sigma confidence.
Malice rulz!
I may be somewhat old-fashioned, but I am always very surprised when people such as Onion state that it’s okay to sneak into historical records, alter them, then sneak out again. And I use the term ‘sneak’ advisedly.
If alterations must be made, the reasons must be recorded and signed off by the person who carried out the alteration, otherwise ‘history’ becomes something more akin to fiction.
Alexander K says:
February 16, 2011 at 2:10 am
I may be somewhat old-fashioned, but I am always very surprised when people such as Onion state that it’s okay to sneak into historical records, alter them, then sneak out again. And I use the term ‘sneak’ advisedly.
If alterations must be made, the reasons must be recorded and signed off by the person who carried out the alteration, otherwise ‘history’ becomes something more akin to fiction.
Although I agree with most of your statement, I can’t agree with “signed off by the person who carried out the alteration”, Anotated yes, but it should be “signed off” by the persons Peers and not his “Pals” or “Team” either.
How did NASA (that’s what I’m calling GISS from now to hopefully shame someone at NASA to do something) ever get a man to the moon, when they can’t even write a simple log of changes?
“I may be somewhat old-fashioned, but I am always very surprised when people such as Onion state that its okay to sneak into historical records, alter them, then sneak out again. And I use the term sneak advisedly.
If alterations must be made, the reasons must be recorded and signed off by the person who carried out the alteration, otherwise history becomes something more akin to fiction.”
What is most insidious about altering the historical climate records is the fact that they are currently being used to defend billions of dollars in tax increases (“to save the planet from CO2”) and massive decreases in our standards of living to accommodate the phony “green” agenda (not to mention the utterly insane and inane “geoengineering” boondoggles). The bottom line is that the more warming there is in the “historical record” the more political pressure that can be brought to bear to realize, in whole or in part, the “green” agenda. And, of course, our politically-connected climate scientist friends will be rewarded handsomely for their efforts…
After years of painstakingly calibrating the instruments and observing the indicated temperatures to within a half degree under all kinds of adverse conditions, you now want to tell us it is a “travesty and wrongness” for the observer and author/s of the records to expect their temperature records to be “set in stone and should never change”?
@onion2
“The actual travesty and wrongness is how many commenters wrongly think temperature records should be set in stone and should never change.”
Well there’s regulatory standards for documenting and archiving measurement such as temperature, then there are the double standard of the official and unofficial measurement for pecker heads.
Well, over at the Journal of Clownology is an article reminding everyone of the famous corollary to Murphy’s Law:
“Constants aren’t; variables won’t.”
– which seems eerily appropriate in light of Dr. Hansen’s Orwellian rewrite of the temperature record. Or do I mean Kafkaesque instead of Orwellian? Never mind – I’m just a clown, I never got an advanced degree in idiocy from the University of East Anglia like some managed to do.
The consistent “improved” record is reminicent of projects in private industry: a decent idea today becomes a good idea tomorrow and a brilliant idea two days from now. Economic benefits increase as time increases from point of conception (Say, a new Principle. Estimated Net Profit is proportional to t-invested).
There is a subtle pressure to make your project “nicer” and more assured as the project goes up the ladder. The most iffy projects become sure-things after about 18 months.
Which is why we got the Edsel and the Saturn (never made a dime its entire production run).
According to Climate Change alarmism CRU, GISS, BOM, and NIWA the future temperature record and climate is certain, only the past temperature record and resulting climate is in doubt.
James Sexton says:
February 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
February 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm
“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…..????!!!!!”
Right on the money. Though you don’t have to use as strong a word as “certitude.” The statement is a crisp, clear affirmation of something that is believed to be true. A later denial of that statement requires an explanation of why it is no longer believed to be true. That explanation might require a scientist to muster all his resources. In not embracing this responsibility, Hansen and others are shirking their duty as our duly appointed heads of government departments. Let us not forget that it was only twelve years ago that the always cock-sure Hansen asserted his belief in this statement. Let us also not forget that Hansen is not just some scientist but occupies the number one position in our government regarding matters of climate science. If Hansen is shirking his duty then our government is shirking its duty.
How many “fred-single-initials” are there trolling this blog anyway?
There is nothing “pathetic” about exposing more attempts to send vital data down the Memory Hole, much as you and other alarmists wish it so.