From American Thinker – NASA’s Rubber Ruler
By Randall Hoven
A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.
We’ve been hearing that 2012 has been the “hottest on record.” I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth’s surface. The “global temperature” in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.
I thought I’d update that analysis to include July’s and August’s temperatures. To my surprise, NASA’s entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA’s June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.
I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA’s web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).
NASA does summarize its “updates to analysis,” but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.
In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html#ixzz27YZRxqIW
=========================================================
Once again it appears NASA has violated the Data Quality Act. Steve McIntyre wrote in 2007: NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures
The U.S. federal government has a detailed set of regulations requiring scientific information to be peer reviewed before it is disseminated by the federal government. NASA, which says that it has “employs the worlds largest concentration of climate scientists”, has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies. Once again, the system involves an employee purporting to be acting in a “personal capacity”. Here’s how it works.
Peer Review Policy
U.S. federal policy on data quality is set out in a variety of steps. The Data Quality Act itself is very short and states:
The guidelines under subsection (a) shall
(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
The OMB has issued several guidelines under the act. The first statement is here . A subsequent OMB Bulletin clearly required peer review of important scientific information before dissemination by the federal government as follows:
This Bulletin establishes that important scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the federal government.
There’s an interesting exemption in this bulletin (and we shall see below how this comes into play):
This definition includes information that an agency disseminates from a web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks on a web page to information that others disseminate.
NASA Policies
NASA has several manuals and policies setting out its own procedures for ensuring compliance with such policies. NASA guidelines specify far-reaching obligations on data quality for information disseminated by NASA. It notes the wide use of NASA information:
NASAs information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy; NASAs scientists and others cooperating with NASA to pursue their important work; the media in describing to the public the importance and advances of research; the educational community to educate a new generation of citizens in science, math, and engineering; and members of the public to enable them to be knowledgeable and inspired about NASAs goals and accomplishments.
It states that the policies apply to NASA Centers as well as to headquarters:
These guidelines are applicable to NASA Headquarters and Centers, …
It states that NASA will ensure the quality of its disseminated information:
NASA will ensure and maximize the quality, including the utility, objectivity, and integrity, of its disseminated information, except where specifically exempted. Categories of information that are exempt from these guidelines are detailed in Section C.3….
Information products disseminated by NASA will be based on reliable, accurate data that has been validated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please could Jim Hansen make it warm last winter, I was frozen, and still haven’t thawed out..
Would you mind plotting the old data against the revised data to show the differences?
Did they make the past colder, like NOAA did, to exaggerate the warming trend?
Your previous post documenting the change in NOAA data was very disturbing; printed records no longer match the electronic data.
This has got to stop. All of these alterations are highly questionable. Not one of the excuses given for these ‘homogenizations’ have any bearing in reality.
These sorts of shenanigans seem to happen with increasing frequency.
Some layperson questions:
Why doesn’t someone just look at raw temperature records in predominantly rural areas over the 100 y+ record?
Wasn’t the BEST project supposed to eliminate fudging, guesswork, data massaging, etc.?
Why do we even “allow” the gate-keepers to modify records?
Should certain tasks be separated, in order to prevent conflict of interest?
Can’t meteorological organizations agree on a “Dow Jones” temperature average, based on calibrated, trustworthy and evenly distributed (as much as possible) sensors? Wouldn’t establishing such a baseline be an achievable goal of the WMO?
Kurt in Switzerland
It would help the quality of the article to put in graphs that compare the before and after data like Bob Tisdale often does.
GISS changes on a month by month basis. Changes throughout the entire record all the way back to 1880 are the rule rather than the exception. See:
https://www.changedetection.com/log/gov/nasa/giss/data/glb2_log.html
Presumably we now wait for a full and transparent explanation from NASA.
And waiting…
There is simply no excuse for this.
Orwell did not consider this form of manipilation of minds because back in his day the weather was just the weather.
This is soooooooooooo unbelievably frustrating! It is downright deceitful and disgusting! I am reminded of the old Soviet joke, ““The future is certain, it is only the past that is unpredictable.”
They are making a mockery of science and a mockery of the U.S. Is there anything at all that an ordinary man can do to stop this nonsense? Write my Senator or Congressman? I’m from Oregon; that won’t help at all. Any ideas? I am at my wit’s end.
Please Sir? Can we use the “f” word?
Randall;
Perhaps plotting the “anomoly” of old vs new would be a quick way of seeing what adjustments were made.
Kurt in Switzerland says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:05 am
—
You are assuming they want accurate data. Rather than data that supports the narrative.
NASA-GISS has been changing it’s data set with EVERY update. Some times the changes are substantial, sometimes larger. GISS is since November 2011 a version 3. If you want to know know the version two data (before it disappears…) go to: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v2/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
then compare V3 with V2 to get a real sense of how the data is being manipulated
Isn’t it long past time GISS was moved to a more appropriate federal agency, e.g., NOAA. I mean, really… what is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration doing in the climate arena to begin with?
I suspect it is because the climate mafia thought to appropriate the gravitas of the agency which sent men to the moon, explored the outer planets, and captured breathtaking vistas of the far cosmos. But, instead of gaining credence for their cause, the parasites have only drained the vitality of their host. Time for NASA to eject that particular payload.
Could someone possibly use the Wayback Machine or similar to get old copies? Or would those not have been archived?
I’m thinking that sending documentation of this to NASA’s congressional oversight or somesuch might be… interesting
As far as I know, NOAA data changed as well.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=27766
Does anybody know if CRU data changed too since they share the majority of the raw data? In other words, who did this first?
Hope they got 1880 right THIS time. /sarc
Thankfully these changes will have no impact, as there is no scientific work done that uses GISS “data”, thus there are no peer-reviewed papers and ongoing works that are invalidated by such data changes and can be allowed to stand unchallenged without re-computation with the new figures. It especially has no impact on politically-motivated compilation pieces like the IPCC reports.
And as there are especially no papers or other works that merely point to GISS for the data, any researchers using GISS would have archived the data when they obtained it and it will be freely provided and included in the Supplementary Info for anyone else’s use, just as they do with all the rest of their data, the impact is even less than nothing.
Indeed, if anything GISS’ silent changes improve the science, by making it even more certainly known that GISS “data” should not be used for serious work, if any.
(Do you think I have to add “/sarc” to that? Really?)
tallbloke says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:55 am
Please could Jim Hansen make it warm last winter, I was frozen, and still haven’t thawed out..
========================================================================
Would that also make last years heating bill go down?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Is it possible to use the data that has been “adjusted” to recreate this 1889-1938 graph?
http://bacontime.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/climate_and_man_003.jpg
Might make an interesting comparison.
“””””…..NASA, which says that it has “employs the worlds largest concentration of climate scientists”, has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies. …..”””””
Why on earth does NASA employ the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists ?? For that matter, what on earth does climate have to do with Aeronautics, or Space Research. I can accept that Aeronautics may have an interest in weather; the atmosphere in which Aeronautics is carried out; but what on earth do they need to know what happened in Antarctica 800,000 years ago.
I just took some nice photos of the very last space shuttle flight; a tour around silicon valley (for the very first time), on the back of a modified Boeing 747 plane. The space shuttle never ever flew over silicon valley on either, any launch, or any re-entry. Much of the project took place here, and we had to wait till the last bitzer shuttle Endeavor kluged out of spare parts, was shuttled off to a veritable scrap heap museum in lala land.
I never minded that my tax dollars were spent developing the technologies that made outer space travel possible; I don’t care to waste it on the weather.
[snip – Sorry, I’m just not interested in your smear and accusations. As a NASA scientist who works with Hansen, you are in a position to demonstrate why/why not the charge of post facto data change if true. Instead you whine, and I’m just not interested in that. Do something substantive other than whining. – Anthony]