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 27, 2012 2:54 pm

I’m trying to document the changes in gistemp.
Sorry but the site is currently only in Norwegian.
http://knuta.no/GISS_en_studie_i_endringer-10151s.html&show=9
I started in 2005 and worked my way up. Therefore, always one trend line from 1880til 2005 to track differences.

Arfur Bryant
September 27, 2012 3:41 pm

Using a thermometer, I have just recorded the temperature outside my accommodation. The reading was 24.5 degrees Celsius.
Would Steven Mosher or Hugh McLean mind making their adjustments and telling me what the ‘real’ temperature was, please?

johnbuk
September 27, 2012 4:13 pm

Arfur Bryant said.
“Using a thermometer, I have just recorded the temperature outside my accommodation. The reading was 24.5 degrees Celsius.”
Arfur, it’s very easy really, you THINK the thermometer reading is 24.5C . You are obviously viewing the thermometer through your “ignorant sceptic” eyes and your brain is interpreting the data as 24.5C NOW.
But if you were a climate scientist (who are the only ones who can make sense of these complicated scientific instruments) then you would probably see the real figure as, say, 25.5C.
However, in say 30 years time (if we’re still here then and have wifi) then you’ll see the temperature will have dropped to the “correctly” adjusted figure of, say, 23.5C.
Don’t worry yourself about it, just leave your wallet open at the front door so the government can help themselves at regular intervals. Better still, enrol for a climate change course at your local university and your eyes will be opened for good, new experiences will unfold and you’ll marvel at the wonderful clothes the emperor is wearing every day.

Arfur Bryant
September 27, 2012 5:13 pm

johnbuk,
Thank very much, mate. I am just about to turn in and now I can sleep peacefully in my own little sceptic’s bed safe and secure in the knowledge that the world’s climate scientists (and governments) have my safety and wellbeing (and rapidly thinning wallet) at heart. Phew!
*
Oh bugger! Did you say there won’t be wifi in thirty years? Now I’m really going to have nightmares…
🙂

george e smith
September 27, 2012 6:33 pm

“””””…..Zeke says:
September 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
The reason NASA is employing the largest concentration of climate scientists harks back to the words of Pres. John F Kennedy. He likened the fair achievent of reaching the moon by 1969 to the mountain climber who, when asked why he climbed the highest peak, said, “Because it is there.”…..”””””
Well it wasn’t exactly “the mountain climber”; specifically, it was George Lee Mallory, and strictly speaking he didn’t climb the highest peak. He certainly climbed on the highest mountain; and so far as is known, he died without reaching that highest peak.
Despite such urban legends, Sir Edmund Hillary was the first person, or one of the first two to climb the highest peak. Actually Sir Edmund Hillary did not climb Mount Everest; it was plain Ed Hillary, a New Zealand bee keeper who did that.
And George Lee Mallory’s brother was the very Lee Mallory who played a (controverisal) role in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

george e smith
September 27, 2012 6:50 pm

Well as for Dr James Hansen changing GISSTemp, I don’t have a problem with him doing that.
It’s his gig after all, and if he wants to change it , well let him do that. I think Beethoven changed the Overture to his Opera Fidelio at least three times; well there’s four different versions of it.
But now if Hansen were to come out and claim that GISSTemp actually has something to do with the Temperature of the earth; well I would take umbrage at that. GISSTemp is simply GISSTemp; nothing more and nothing less.
Anybody with enough vacant time on their hands, and access to numbers, can make up their own gig, and call it whatever they want.
See, if I didn’t have some real work to do for paying clients, I could make up my own gizmo, and of course it would be called GESTemp; well I’d try something different, and put out a GESDrench every month. Rain gauges don’t have toxic Mercury in them like thermometers, and what could be more benign than rain. We have plenty of it, and it can’t go off into some runaway sudden pileup like Temperature can.
So I’ll reserve GESDrench for the time being, till I round up enough MacDonalds Seniors coffee cups, to put a few around here and there; maybe under Weber grills, so they don’t fill up too fast.
So we need to get a life and realize that GISSTemp is all there is to GISSTemp, and Hansen can change it if he wants to.

ferdberple
September 27, 2012 6:52 pm

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.
==================
The historical temperature records are not “incoming data sources”. They are static sources.
By all means work to improve the current sources. But you cannot improve the past sources by adjusting them and them claiming these are past temperature records. They are not. Only the originals are the past records. Everything else is synthetic and this should be clearly stated.
Of course the historical temp are being adjusted downwards. The AGW reality says temps are increasing, so the historical records must be reading too high and need to be adjusted downwards to correct them.

Arfur Bryant
September 28, 2012 1:56 am

All scientific methods are equal, but some scientific methods are more equal than others…
It’s really quite simple. If the data doesn’t fit the theory, change the data!

wayne Job
September 28, 2012 4:31 am

I have been saying for some time that mobs like this are running out of easy fudges, the ones they are making are only keeping pace with the cooling. The quiet sun is a bit of a bother for them as apparently the sun has no roll in the climate. The heat island effect being twigged by Anthony and others making them read real temperatures has caused them a little pain, so they have to reach even further back in time to maintain the status quo.
Thus the fudges become more obvious and will become impossible to maintain over the coming years, as too many eyes are watching. Silly silly mob. Hangs your heads in shame.

Geoff Sherrington
September 28, 2012 4:59 am

Keep in mind that the superb accuracy claimed for the recent Mars lander could not have been achieved without adjustment of past temperatures, still in the 80 million km of space between Earth and Mars, being reconstructed and corrected back to the 1880s like temperatures down a bore hole.
Otherwise NASA would have to invoke a Mars Bar.

Phil's Dad
September 28, 2012 6:10 am

Thomas Bronzich (September 26, 2012 at 9:57 am)
I think you mean “Quis custodiet ipcc custodes?” (or is that too Juvenal?)

Tim Clark
September 28, 2012 6:52 am

[ “employs the worlds largest concentration of climate scientists”]
Obviously then, it’s way past time to clean out the feedlot.

Steve from Rockwood
September 29, 2012 12:59 pm

I can understand wanting to improve a data set but when I downloaded version 3 and compared it to the previous version 2 the changes are obvious. Virtually all of the 1880 – 1956 temperature anomalies have been adjusted downward and most of the 1976 – 2011 anomalies upward. Now why would that happen? Plus from 1957 to 1975 they happened to get everything right?

October 3, 2012 5:41 pm

Who guards the guardian?: tutela ero manipulated custodio themselves obviam themselves via a deceptio sepius accersitus ” optimus recubo “

1 4 5 6