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.
I’m sure it’s just a simple matter of bit decay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_decay
Nothing to see here…
/sarc
“NASAs information from its missions and programs is used by…members of the public to enable them to be knowledgeable and inspired about NASAs goals and accomplishments.”
I don’t think I am seeing the proper “inspiration about NASAs goals and accomplishments” here by members of the public.
Is there no-one with the authority to call BS on this data fiddling and force full explanations of what, exactly, NASA (and NOAA, and …) are up to? Or is it, as many of us suspect, that anyone with that authority is one of those guilty of ordering it?
It’s not just a US matter – “NASA’s information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy … “. This affects us all, no matter where we happen to be, and without that full explanation it’s fraudulent misrepresentation, because the facts are what was recorded in 1880, not what “somebody” decided in 2012.
So, conspiracy, corruption, malfeasance and misconduct, reaching to the highest level in the Space Agency or….
the updating the GHCN product in Sept 2012 to fix coding errors in the homogeneity routine:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf
who can tell?
For anyone wondering, American Thinker states the effects of this latest change as:
“To be fair, the overall result was that the 131-year trend now calculates to 0.64 deg C per century instead of 0.60 deg C per century. And the trend since 2002 is still a cooling one. (In fact, the cooling trend since 2002 is steeper with the new data.) So maybe this isn’t that big of a deal.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html#ixzz27b8HR4we
C. Quesenberry
You might try writing Sen Inhofe.
So what happens once all the hens have been eaten?
There is no doubt that the GISS temperature record is
scientificallyphilosophically sound and reliable.Why do conflicts of interest continue to be ignored as if they’re not an issue. As soon as James Hansen’s reputation became entangled with the perception of a warming world he should have been removed from having any influence over the temperature record. If Bernanke went before congress and projected exponential increases in interest rates unless they passed legislation that he deemed necessary would we let him then stay in the position to determine interest rates? It’s surreal. I just want to wake up, find that it’s 1988 and James Hansen has just been arrested for perjury and extortion for the “trick” he pulled on Congress for personal gain.
David Thomas Bronzich says (September 26, 2012 at 9:57 am)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
——-
We do! Thanks Randall and Anthony.
David Thomas Bronzich says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:57 am
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
WE do, David.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, HANSEN.
As the sun is winding down the current cycle, we can expect more NOAA ‘artistry’ in the years to come
Solar maximum? Oh, you just missed it
26 September 2012 by Stuart Clark (new scientist)
WAITING for solar fireworks to reach a grand finale next year? Um, sorry, looks like you already missed them. Structures in the sun’s corona indicate that the peak in our star’s latest cycle of activity has been and gone, at least in its northern hemisphere.
……….
Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, (who) models what drives the sun’s magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528843.700-solar-maximum-oh-you-just-missed-it.html
Correction: Should be NASA (not NOAA).
Stunning …
.
I’m missing description of what was actually changed. Was it measurements of individual stations, gridded data, or average US temperature? Methods to calculate average or gridded temperatures may change and may provide different results even without changes to actual measurements, for instance.
Nasa does not change the data of the past.
GISSTEMP is a computer program that estimates the global “average “temperature of the past and present. It relies on inputs made available by other sources, GHCN, and SCAR.
There are ongoing projects to improve the coverage and quality of the incoming data sources. that means the input data can and will change on a monthly basis. Since the past is an estimate made relative to a 1951-1980 baseline period changes can and will ripple through the system. To put it simply. we don’t know the temperature of the past. We estimate it based on the data that is available. When that data changes, the estimate will change.
The other thing is that you can expect more changes going forward as the newer versions of GHCN-M are rolled out. You can probably expect that more stations will be added over time as more and more daily sources are being made available. Unless you want to argue against using more station data this advance should be welcomed.
Some of the data making its way into the records hasnt been public before ( availbale but not posted ) so it wil be interesting to see how more data changes the picture
My favorite Climate audit post has a nice graph of adjustments made in 2007:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/02/16/adjusting-ushcn-history/
Alice Springs has been going up and down like a yoyo.
I’ve given up trying to follow it.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/temperatures-altered-yet-again-in-alice-springs/
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:20 am
so if somebody like UEA or the UK metoffice produces ‘new’ or adjusted data – this gets ‘read’ by Gisstemp and alters everything it produces?? Do you have more info please?
Mind you – if that is the case – then presumably, the data used is ‘pre’-validated and public too?
Every one knows the real data is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the models which are right!
So NASA scrubbed some temperatures. US Army Corps of Engineers and US Geological Survey scrubbed one of the biggest Southern California floods in more than a century (1969). See Page 26 “The Man Who Made a Flood Disappear” in “Alluvial Amnesia” at:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/CGS_Report-2002-00001
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/220
http://www.unz.org/Pub/CGS_Report-2002
Steven Mosher says:
“Nasa does not change the data of the past.”
http://i54.tinypic.com/fylq2w.jpg
http://img.umweltluege.de/fudging0809.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
http://www.klimadebat.dk/images/articles/lansner/f9.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASACHANGES.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3259/gistempuschanges11years.png
They all do it:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01675ef0785c970b-pi
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/cru-temp.gif
They are trying to fabricate global warming when there has been none for the past 15 years.
Paul Homewood says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
Alice Springs has been going up and down like a yoyo.
I’ve given up trying to follow it.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/temperatures-altered-yet-again-in-alice-springs/
Now that’s hilarious, nice documentation Paul.
Goddard has been following the recent massive data tampering…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/another-tough-month-for-ushcn-adjusters/
Okay, Mosher’s apologia on GISS’ behalf has been posted, as expected. Back to the issue.
With the new data fudging, the current cooling trend since 2002 is now a little steeper. But they insist this is a temporary thing, there are transient masking events, the heat’s getting stored in the ocean somewhere, yada yada. So the new warming trend of the 131-year record is steeper, and when the real warming signal is once again revealed and brings with it the “lost” heat, we will be even more screwed than they had said we would be before.
Thus it is worse than we thought, we must act now, and that’s the most-immediate now not the “this decade” now, to cut the carbon emissions and kill the anthropogenic warming. Now, while some previously unknown chance factors have given us a brief respite which has miraculously kept many tipping points from getting tipped, except for the Arctic sea ice.
Does that sound like the current (recently revised) version of The Narrative?
They should remind themselves that in other professions, such as accounting, economic forecasting or Ponzi investing, changing the figures every month could make you…..seriously rich. Oh wait…
But you may subsequently get arrested.
PS: Paul Homewood says (September 26, 2012 at 11:33 am)
Alice Springs has been going up and down like a yoyo.
——
Was she in a late night movie that I missed? 🙂
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2012 at 11:20 am
”’There are ongoing projects to improve the coverage and quality of the incoming data sources”
this is a weird description – I accept that incoming data may well be valid, but it may equally have been ‘improved’ – or is that ‘fudged’? or ‘adjusted’?, etc, etc If so – Is the net result not the same, i.e. the data is massaged to newer values?