NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates Data Quality Act

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 world’s 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:

NASA’s information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy; NASA’s 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 NASA’s 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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

139 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 26, 2012 2:57 pm

An interesting question is raised by all of this…
Who exactly is the climate code foundation.
A bit of searching reveals…..
http://climatecode.org/about/

DocMartyn
September 26, 2012 3:04 pm

I am always struck by the large number of glaciers there must have been during the 1930’s dust bowl period.
I am not sure if we will observe warming in the future, but I know for sure we will observe cooling in the past.

JJones
September 26, 2012 3:09 pm

[quote]Steven Mosher says:
To put it simply. we don’t know the temperature of the past.
[/quote]
IF that’s the case, then to put it simply we don’t know that there is global warming man-made or otherwise.

Reg Nelson
September 26, 2012 3:41 pm

I guess the one positive in all of this, is that it points to the fact that there is no CAGW or significant GW. I there was, they wouldn’t have to jump through hoops, tree rings and models to manufacture it.
One other thing I have noticed is that their recent (may, could, might) predictions/projections now have targets half century to a century out from now, so they can’t get called all out for being wrong.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 26, 2012 3:43 pm

From denniswingo on September 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm:

An interesting question is raised by all of this…
Who exactly is the climate code foundation.

That was the Clear Climate Code project (ccc).
There was much ado about the Clear Climate Code project, the faithful rewriting and re-implementation of GISTEMP with the Python programming language. This was felt needed as the original code was problematic to get running, needed several “tweaks”, etc. Often people would say “GISS released all their code and it works fine!” then link to the CCC version. There were some bugs found in the GISTEMP code, that when corrected “Didn’t (meaningfully) change the results at all!” As I recall, there was talk that the CCC code was so good, and did such an accurate reproduction of the GISTEMP results, GISS was going to switch over to it.
Then GISTEMP went v3 Dec 2011. The last update at the CCC site was Feb 2011. At the Google code repository, the last ccc-gistemp release was Oct 2010, last notable upload was apparently a GUI (graphical user interface) from July 2011. Four days ago someone uploaded something called “USHCN Step 2 reference archive 2012-09-22”, has zero downloads.
So a group of warmist types didn’t like how GISS was getting disparaged, spent a lot of time and effort to show GISTEMP wan’t hiding anything, it was all perfectly logical, the code just needed some unifying with a common language… And GISS screwed them over and left them crying in the street. No one cares about “ccc-gistemp” as that matched v2, thus it’s now worthless. GISTEMP is restored as a near-impenetrable mess that no one wants to hack through to find out what it really does, even if “the code is freely available for download”.

Phil Ford
September 26, 2012 3:49 pm

I would ask everyone here with a scientific background to do all you can to bring pressure on NASA to stop this kind of revisionist meddling – even as a non-scientist, even I get the distinct impression that this is not how genuine science is supposed to be done. It’s all very disturbing.

Simon
September 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Estimates change as more historical data becomes available. The source is an oxymoron.

E.M.Smith
Editor
September 26, 2012 4:10 pm

The way GIStemp works is that it takes as input the jiggered NOAA data, then re-jiggers it.
I’ve been through all the code and it is designed to be “never the same way twice”. (IMHO with an upward bias). As the GHCN and USHCN data change each month (actually, on a nearly continuous basis throughout the month, with some ‘zombie’ stations reporting and updating prior months long after they have passed… sometimes years later) those changes are then used to make more and different changes in the homogenizing and UHI steps.
Then even more in the final “create a grid box zonal anomaly process” (that comes AFTER all the temperature shenanigans… ).
It can NEVER have a consistent prior / historical temperature. They will always change.
@kadaka (KD Knoebel):
I did get it running (on Linux. Does fine on a 400 Mhz AMD chip from the ’90s 😉 but the process was painful.
I’ve not gone back to re-do the effort for the newer release. I will… if someone wants to pay an hourly rate to do it; but the product is so crummy it really ought to just be thrown out instead. Details, for those interested:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

September 26, 2012 4:24 pm

It seems to me like official climate science has gone down a rabbit hole. Expect white rabbits, hookah-smoking caterpillars and more, much more!

DR
September 26, 2012 4:47 pm

GISS doesn’t manipulate, add and subtract data to inflate the numbers? Yeah, ok.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/

bw
September 26, 2012 5:21 pm

Agree that data reported by GISS are a mess. I’ve been monitoring some stations for about 6 years. Data change often. Many monthly data change by small amounts, but sometimes there are larger spikes, almost like outliers. For example, Amundsen-Scott showed consistently flat temps in the 1970s. When I looked at the same data in June 2012 there suddenly appeared an upward spike in 1978 temps, about 3 degrees. Saving the monthly text data, I noted that March to October had changed radically from the same data I had saved in 2007. Today I looked again and the 1978 spike has disappeared, and now the March to October 1978 data have become 999.9 instead, indicating lost data. The current chart now displays a gap for 1978. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=700890090000&data_set=14&num_neighbors=1
It’s not just Amundsen-Scott, I’ve seen odd jumps and changes in several stations, such as Truk and Godthab-Nuuk over the years. Yet some stations show almost no changes, such as Vostok.
To my eyes, there seems to be NON-methodical changes.
You can’t have Good data unless it is acquired methodically so that others may be able to understand, analyze and critique the observations.

Louis Hooffstetter
September 26, 2012 5:25 pm

Jan Perlwitz:
These adjustments look like a scientific scam. Anthony invited you to step up and explain how / why these adjustments are valid, because you work for, and speak for NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html
Take advantage of this opportunity, and please, please, please, tell us what the hell are you guys at NASA GISS are doing with the temperature data and WHY! Everyone here in the US, (and the rest of the world) wants to hear your logical, rational, explanation for adjusting this data (again!). Speak clearly, and don’t stutter! If you can’t explain these adjustments right here, right now, SHAME ON YOU!, and never expect anyone to trust you or your data ever again!

prjindigo
September 26, 2012 5:33 pm

The sad truth here is that most errors in thermometer reading are high and most thermometers ERROR high. You can quite literally get away with adjusting all temps down by about 0.17 degrees and still be in the same sigma

September 26, 2012 6:17 pm

Anthony et al: I may have mentioned this before? There’s a tool out there that makes illustrating changes/censorship VERY quick and easy. iCyte.com has a program that lets you “snap” pictures, not just of a screen, but of a whole webpage, so that later on you can say: “Go to XXX.xxx and you’ll see the page with its dated material of June 10th, and then go to page XXX.xxx and you’ll see what the page looks like today and can see the changes.”
To see its usefulness in action, see the potentially libelous comment aimed at me at:
http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/538500
along with my defense comment (that was left invisibly “in moderation” for several weeks before being erased altogether). You can see the Cyte website’s save date as Nov. 13th, 2011 next to my cuddly little pic in the upper left. And THEN click on the little blue “S” in the upper right corner to see the comment disappear and be replaced with an innocent one when the present version of the page comes up!
iCyte allows you to quickly and indisputably show censorship and data-changing in your web postings in a way that’s pretty difficult to dispute. As the climate wars “heat up” I think you’re going to need this kind of protection more and more.
– MJM

Louis Hooffstetter
September 26, 2012 6:19 pm

Steve Mosher says:
“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.”
Steve, I have the utmost respect for you, but you need to carefully re-read what you wrote above. You’re famous for your drive-by quasi-explanations, but this is the most patronizing drive-by BS I’ve seen you write here on WUWT. Please take the time to clearly explain exactly what you were trying to convey.
Here’s where I disagree with what you wrote: Temperature data from the past does NOT change. Recorded past temperature data is fixed, empirical data recorded by human beings at specific points in time. For the periods when recorded empirical data is available, we DO know the temperature of the past (at specific locations). This data is fixed and unchanging, period! It is what it is. The people who recorded the data didn’t get it wrong, and climatologists have to deal with it. That’s the whole point of this post! Climatologists can’t adjust the data at will to suit their desires, and that’s exactly what it looks like NASA, Hadley CRU, etc., do on a routine basis.
And any computer program, model, etc. that “estimates, projects, etc.” global average temperatures or whatever, but doesn’t match up with empirical recorded data, is flat out, plain WRONG! That’s why it’s called a “reality check!” If it fails the most basic test, which is simply to match reality, it cannot possibly be correct.

Brian H
September 26, 2012 6:31 pm

… foxes … henhouse …

DonS
September 26, 2012 6:32 pm

Been away for a while. Came back and logged on to my fav site and discover that the hounds are roaming far and wide chasing various scents ( the Aussie pollster nitwit and adjusted data). Can’t see how any of this advances the goal of getting the world’s peons (I am a Model A) to see that they are being scammed by scurrilous “scientists” who are operating in their own self-interests. Okay, Anthony has never said that was the goal. But to have lasting relevance all of this effort must effectuate some result. Rhetorical exhibition is one of my favorites, but results mean more than anything. I’ve got the scythe all sharpened up. Where should I swing it?

September 26, 2012 6:38 pm

“Nasa does not change the data of the past.”
Clearly, they do.
Andrew

Paul Vaughan
September 26, 2012 6:48 pm

Is there really any solution to this? Seriously – peer review?? Like that’s going to help! That mechanism would just be used as an excuse for loooooong delays in publishing equally bad or worse data. More time to stack the committee with “agreeable” people. More time to do elaborate data cooking. We’d lose the ability to document errors made due to panicked haste. Better to simply archive all past versions.

Editor
September 26, 2012 6:48 pm

In case anybody’s interested, I’ve been keeping GISS monthly downloads since March 2008, plus some earlier ones I found on “Wayback Machine”. I also have NOAA starting January 2010 and I’ve also been following Hadley, UAH, and RSS for a while.
Maybe WUWT should keep an archive of monthly updates from these sites to keep the warm-mongers honest. The archive should be downloadable so that thousands of people around the planet have a copy. The files aren’t that huge. And with xz compression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils (which beats the daylights out of zip compression) the combined files (tarball?) won’t be that large. A note for anybody trying to automate the process, the GISS site responds with code “403 Forbidden” to the wget program. It can be made to work by blocking wget’s “user agent” string with the option…
-U “” (this is the short option format)
–user-agent=”” (this is the long option format)

Hugh McLean
September 26, 2012 6:48 pm

Louis Hooffstetter (and anyone else who actually wants to know how and why adjustments are made to raw historical temperature data) can find complete details by following the relevant links on the GISTEMP main page: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
WARNING: the information provided by these references may prove troublesome to those with allergic sensitivities to actual science.

JJ
September 26, 2012 7:05 pm

Louis Hooffstetter says:
Steve, I have the utmost respect for you, but you need to carefully re-read what you wrote above. You’re famous for your drive-by quasi-explanations, but this is the most patronizing drive-by BS I’ve seen you write here on WUWT.

You must be new. Welcome!
;^)

Paul Vaughan
September 26, 2012 7:07 pm

“NASA GISS caught changing past data again”
tallbloke wrote: “Please could Jim Hansen make it warm last winter, I was frozen, and still haven’t thawed out..” (September 26, 2012 at 8:55 am)
A tale of climate historians & climate hysterians.

September 26, 2012 7:29 pm

Hugh McLean says September 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm
… (and anyone else who actually wants to know how and why adjustments are made to raw historical temperature data) can find complete details by following the relevant links on the GISTEMP main page: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
WARNING: the information provided by these references may prove troublesome to those with allergic sensitivities to actual science.

What bravado; that link is provided in the 4th paragraph in the head post but I suppose you are welcome at any time to re-post it.
BTW, can you shed any light on this excerpt from here and shown:

“While the PHA makes adjustments upwards and downward to historic data in approximately equal numbers, the algorithm identifies the need for a slightly larger number of positive adjustments (which correct abrupt, artificial cool steps in a station’s record) than negative adjustments (which correct warm step changes).”

It looks as if it may go to the heart of the matter …
.

Pamela Gray
September 26, 2012 8:00 pm

Well…when ya got dirty data, ya got change the ol’ nappy!