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 8:13 pm

There must be an internal-to-NASA register of changes to the dataset which presumably would be subject to a FOI request. If not, how could they ensure that the same “valid” adjustment hasn’t been made multiple times?

September 26, 2012 8:48 pm

Mosher writes “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.”
Its true that GISS isn’t the source of the data but when it is generated, it is done so for a reason that should be documented. eg. “GHCN dataset version X update”

David Ball
September 26, 2012 9:04 pm

Hugh McLean says:
September 26, 2012 at 6:48 pm
In case you missed it. You can bet someone on WUWT? has done just that.
E.M.Smith says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

September 26, 2012 9:09 pm

Ric Werme [September 26, 2012 at 1:39 pm] says:

Steven Mosher [September 26, 2012 at 11:20 am] says:
“To put it simply. we don’t know the temperature of the past.”

“If “we don’t know the temperature of the past,” then how do we know there is global warming?”

Ouch! Ric cuts right to the chase.

donald penman
September 26, 2012 10:32 pm

Satellite data is better than land based thermometer data then, we can calibrate satellite data to get an unchanging reading of global/regional temperature but using thermometers we can only ever get an estimate of global/regional temperature.I am concerned that all this adjustment of thermometer data to derive the statistic you want corrupts the data so that it no longer performs its original purpose which is to measure temperature at a certain place.If the thermometer data is not adjusted then we can use these results to see if our regional/global estimates are anywhere near accurate and the statistic you derive from the
thermometer data fails that test.

Carsten Arnholm, Norway
September 26, 2012 11:20 pm

Here is what they do: animation
From a discussion thread in the skeptical Norwegian forum http://klimaforskning.com/forum/ (klimaforskning == climate research)

Man Bearpig
September 26, 2012 11:27 pm

If what Steve Mosher says is accurate then there can be no previous record high or low temperatures – primarily as they are not ‘temperatures’ per se but seemingly proxy calculations subject to adjustment – in either direction. In theory if one year was a record high, then it could become a record low at the stroke of a pen.
Also if the historical records are calculated values and not based on physical measurement then that too would question any ‘records’ claimed by the data set.
Mosher it would seem has just acknowledged the GISS temperatures are not real and just some fantasy chart.

Stefan
September 27, 2012 2:00 am

@Hugh McLean
Perhaps if the public were told these are an estimate of the planet’s past temperatures, then the revised estimates wouldn’t come across as corruption.
And in a sense, everything is estimated, but when the ballpark figure lands you in a different city altogether, what use is it? How much of the missing heat is just estimated heat?

September 27, 2012 2:31 am

The BBC will hate this! You can’t rely on anything these days.

Editor
September 27, 2012 3:03 am

Defenders of these sort of adjustments often say that the adjustments largely cancel each other out, and therefore the overall effect on global temps is negligible.
In which case, why bother with them at all?

CodeTech
September 27, 2012 4:47 am

Steve Mosher wrote:

To put it simply. we don’t know the temperature of the past. We estimate it based on the data that is available.

True. By the same token, do not forget that we also do not know the temperature TODAY, and certainly have no useful way of determining the temperature in the future.
The best we have is estimates and models, and a historical record that has wide error bars and insufficient quality control for the kind of precision we think we have. And yes, that includes satellite measurements.
In fact, temperature, global temperature, average temperature, and historical temperatures are almost completely meaningless. If you want any kind of useful metric, try satellite readings from a far distance, at regular intervals, with a single value. NO resolution issues. ONE number. One sensor reading the reflection from the dayside, one from the nightside. Then, and only then, it will be possible to get a handle on whether the planet is warming or cooling, and by how much. Give it 70 years to accumulate enough data to include at least one of the known major cycles.
Anything else is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bill Illis
September 27, 2012 5:30 am

The NCDC global temperature trend (which GISS gets its data from) has increased by +0.16C since the first time I saved it in November 2008.
The increase from 1900 to November 2008 is now 0.16C higher.
And it is not just random changes that would be expected from just fixing errors but a systematic steady adjustment through time.
The questions are:
– how much did they play around with the data prior to November 2008.
– how much have they have adjusted the post-November 2008 temperatures
Steven Goddard working with the Raw versus Adjusted data suggests they continue to adjust even the most recent temperature readings – like the meteorologists are still, last month, screwing up the current readings so badly that they still have to be corrected. And the NCDC has been especially active with the 2012 temperatures records.
UAH is the only reliable temperature dataset.

Paul Vaughan
September 27, 2012 5:49 am

Book idea:
The Hysterical Record: A History of Climate Science.

JJ
September 27, 2012 5:55 am

Paul Homewood says:
Defenders of these sort of adjustments often say that the adjustments largely cancel each other out, and therefore the overall effect on global temps is negligible.

Yes, we hear a lot of things like that.
For example, there is one group out there that claims that, unlike GISSTemp or HADCrut or the others, THEIR superduper surface temperature estimate uses pretty mush ALL of the data that exist – WAY more than any of the other guys. And they have an extra special Cuisinart homogenization algorithm that not only avoids the pitfalls of the other guy’s adjustments, it also mystically allows them to claim that 100% of the warming they see is anthropogenic, without having to do so much as a single one of those pesky attribution studies. And they claim to get THE SAME RESULT as the people using only a subset.
So, they say, the ‘global warming’ that we were sincerely (wink wink, nudge nudge) sceptical about is proven. The other guys were right all along, and gee aren’t we sorry we ever sincerely (wink wink, nudge nudge) doubted them. It doesn’t matter if you use ALL of the data and the BEST (TM) methods, you get the same answer as using a THIRD of the data and not the best methods.
And yet each time the subsets get a little bit larger and a little bit “better” (they should probably trademark that) adjusted, their trends get warmer. And warmer. And warmer. Reversing the old saw, The more things stay “the same”, the more they seem to change.

nottbrite
September 27, 2012 6:14 am

NASA just like the BBC has lost the plot, they are very fortunate as they are dealing with hundreds of millions of idiots, after all if it came from them it must be true !

CodeTech
September 27, 2012 6:40 am

It occurs to me… if these adjustments continue on their current trends, eventually people will begin to wonder why it never got above freezing anywhere on the planet 100 years ago, even in July.

John Blake
September 27, 2012 7:12 am

Try posting retroactive changes to stock market indices, then seek post hoc remuneration by claiming your transactions made obscene profits on that basis, and see how far you get.
NASA’s “climate science” stinks. And that goes for every one of the Green Gang –Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al.– not to mention Ehrlich, Holdren, Farnish, Kentti Linkola and all the ragbag Schellnhubers agog at Railrod Bill Pachauri’s New World Order.
Ten years from now, these creeps will sanctimoniously “deny” everything. Faugh!

ferdberple
September 27, 2012 7:13 am

HG says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:08 am
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
++++++++++++++++++++
WOW! This is a real eye opener. Look at the % change month to month. It is huge! 60% of the readings were changed last month. The highest on record.
Most of the changes were between 1880 and 1936. Almost every value was changed. Some quite dramatically. Less after that time. Have a look for yourself. The changes are flagged in yellow, so it is easy to see where the greatest concentration of changes is happening.
How is it that GISS can know that readings taken prior to 1936 are inaccurate and need to be changed? Is it simply a coincidence that 1936 is the point at which most of the changes end? Could it be an effort to erase the fact that the 1930’s set many more temperature records than have been set in recent years?

ferdberple
September 27, 2012 7:26 am

Paul Homewood says:
Defenders of these sort of adjustments often say that the adjustments largely cancel each other out, and therefore the overall effect on global temps is negligible.
+++++++++++++
Then why make the adjustments? If they cancel each other out and the overall effect is negligible, would it not be best to simply not make the adjustments? Otherwise there is a risk that the adjustments will corrupt the historical records. Especially in the case of adjustments on top of adjustments, with the risk of unforeseen, complex interactions between the adjustments.
Why take the risk of corrupting the historical records if the effects of the adjustments is negligible?
The must likely explanation is that the effect is not negligible. Otherwise, the adjustments make no sense given the risk of data corruption.

Coach Springer
September 27, 2012 7:34 am

To paraphrase the Mosher explanation: We don’t know, we estimate, we re-estimate, we add new estimations, and we automatically “homogenize” them together in a Program. But don’t worry, it’s data!
Skeptical? Moi?

Henry Clark
September 27, 2012 7:36 am

“david says:
September 26, 2012 at 9:36 am
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”

Indeed one can see the difference, and that is the usual frog in boiling water tactic, keeping changes individually gradual so few people notice despite such adding up over time.
Your link is helpful.
I archived
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v2/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
at
http://www.webcitation.org/6AzbEEDqL
(though it may take some hours to pass through the usual archive queue).
Also I archived
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
(already more fudged to cool the oldest years to increase the depicted warming trend)
at
http://www.webcitation.org/6AzbOz7W5
Unfortunately version 1, relatively the least fudged data, may be already deleted from the government site, but at least this saves version 2 and version 3.
So, when they predictably fudge it additionally further in a CAGW-convenient direction later, cooling the past more in their next revision like version 4 (as ideological polarization, confidence, and dishonesty continue to increase over time), those webcitation links will leave an electronic trail. These guys are almost clone-like predictable; for instance, I archived http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo on arctic ice just a few days before it was deleted as the link verifies.

ferdberple
September 27, 2012 7:38 am

The reason GISS adjusts the past is clear. Adjusting the present doesn’t work because eventually folks step outside and realize their houses have not caught fire, the oceans are not boiling, regardless of what GISS says.
However, by adjusting the past there is no problem in saying the world was a frozen block of ice 130 years ago. No one is left alive to dispute it. The folks that created the records 130 years ago, they are long since dead and can’t defend their good name and the quality of their work.
If GISS wants to say that 100 years ago folks didn’t know how to record temperatures, that the equipment all read way too high, that we now need to adjust the historical records downward, well who is there left alive to dispute this?

Neo
September 27, 2012 8:09 am

So how does somebody acting in their personal capacity become the source of “information that others disseminate” under the aegis of distributing “NASA” data. Federal law prohibits the personal or commercial use of the name “NASA”.

September 27, 2012 9:15 am

I save GISS data on an irregular basis, and I DID save June of 2012 and I just compared it to the current set
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
and I find that nearly every single number was changed. Of 1588 entries, only 61 were left as is 1016 adjusted dowward 511 upwards the overall slope went down from 0.96° since 1850 to 0.84°.

markx
September 27, 2012 12:07 pm

Steven Mosher says: September 26, 2012 at 11:20 am
“Nasa does not change the data of the past.”
Mosher really surprised me with this post. He usually seems like a very smart chap. Sounds quite Orwellian now (2 + 2 = 5 anyone?).
Might be simply a matter of definition.
Change : to become altered or modified: …
Change : to become transformed or converted (usually followed by into ): …
Steve, if they are not the same as they were last time we looked,. it means they have …. um …. changed….