Print 119 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on Nov 27 at 6:30 AM

GISS's October Data. The large reddish-brown area in Russia is actually September readings.
Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is one of the world's primary sources for climate data. GISS issues regular updates on world temperatures based on their analysis of temperature readings from thousands of monitoring stations over the globe.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm-- a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month's data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at They noted that NASA's data didn't agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS's US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS's data?

An alert reader on McIntyre's blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier-- the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

A few locations in Ireland were also found to be using September data.

Steve McIntyre informed GISS of the error by email. According to McIntyre, there was no response, but within "about an hour", GISS pulled down the erroneous data, citing a "mishap" and pointing the finger of blame upstream to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration (NOAA).

NOAA's Deputy Director of Communications, Scott Smullens, tells DailyTech that NOAA is responsible only for temperature readings in the US, not those in other nations.

The error not only affected October data, but due to the complex algorithm GISS uses to convert actual temperature readings into their output results, altered the previously published values for several other months as well. The values for August 2008, for instance, changed by 0.11C and the global anomaly as far back as 2005 increased by a hundredth of a degree.

GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen, a strident global warming advocate who has accused oil companies of "crimes against humanity".  Hansen recently made headlines when he travelled to London to testify on behalf of a group of environmentalists who had damaged a coal plant in protest against global warming. Hansen also serves as science advisor to Al Gore.

Dr. Hansen could not be reached for comment.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By Surak on 11/12/2008 1:33:21 AM , Rating: -1
Masher you are frakking pathetic!

Simply contradicting my point because you don't like it doesn't make you right ... it does make you a dumbass.

Dissolved CO2 in the ocean absolutely contains 14C throughout. It isn't isolated from the atmosphere long enough for it all to decay.

Scientists have been measuring 14C in dissolved CO2 in the deep ocean for several decades. The pulse of elevated 14C from atmospheric nuclear bomb testing is used as a tracer for the movement of deep ocean currents through direct measurements of dissolved inorganic carbon.

But that must be the term you don't understand ... 'Dissolved Inorganic Carbon' = dissolved CO2 and two hydrated variations of dissolved CO2.

I'm glad you brought up the Devonian period, I like it when fools tie their own noose and jump into it. Sure the Devonian may have had 10x more atmospheric CO2 (although still half of the 20x I disputed with the OP).

But the Devonian is also well known for global tropical temperatures and EXTREMELY HIGH OCEAN LEVELS! North America was mostly covered by an inland sea!

So go ahead, pick 4 or 5 BILLION of your closest friends to sacrifice in the geopolitical anarchy that would ensue with an environment that just takes a small step in that direction.

When the environment changes, the people will move ... The US can't even keep illegal migrant workers out of their borders, think they can stop hundreds of millions of eco-refugees? Think you can kill them fast enough?

I never said that current CO2 levels are 'ideal' for life and I never said that any level of CO2 should be considered normal or abnormal. Sure with some other CO2 level life will go on ... but move CO2 too far from what it's been in the last few million years, and life will be going on without humanity.

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By ikkeman2 on 11/12/2008 3:05:49 AM , Rating: 5
Surak, take a chill pill, suck some O2 and relax!!
You sound like the kind of person that'll burn books and scientists alike if they don't support your point of view. I hope your not...

from wikipedia (go change that if it's wrong)
"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]"

from the same article - atmospheric CO2 is approx 3E15 tonnes, US production is about 2.2E9 tonnes - let the global human production be 10 times that, it is still only 0.000067% of the free carbon in the atmo.

explain to me if you will how our influence increased co2 levels from 320ppm in 1960 to 380ppm now. that's an 8.5% increase as a result of 50 years of 0.000067%. My math may be wron, but doesn't the human contribution to the carbon icrease amount to 50*0.000067%=0.0033%?
global co2 increase is a natural phenomanon to which humans add, maybe to our detriment - but that cannot be proven in any statistical way!

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2008 7:45:28 AM , Rating: 4
> "Dissolved CO2 in the ocean absolutely contains 14C throughout. It isn't isolated from the atmosphere long enough for it all to decay."

Sorry, but you couldn't be further from the truth. The ocean contains many orders of mangnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere; much of it stored for hundreds of thousands of years.

Here's a study that proves this conclusively, based on CO2 "burps" at the end of the last ice age:
They found the carbon 14 "age" of the upper ocean water was basically constant over the past 40,000 years, except during the interval following the most recent ice age, when atmospheric CO2 increased dramatically. The study shows the carbon added to the upper ocean and atmosphere at the end of the last ice age was "very old," suggesting it had been stored in the deep ocean and isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years , said Marchitto

The researchers found massive, natural increases in atmospheric CO2 -- CO2 that had very little C14...due to it being stored in the deep sea for so long. In other words, a situation identical to what we see today.


> "So go ahead, pick 4 or 5 BILLION of your closest friends to sacrifice in the geopolitical anarchy "

Stuff and nonsense. Even the IPCC is only predicting a few centimeters of sea level rise, and no serious hurricanologist predicts an increase in storm intensity (Emannauel Kerry, the only such researcher to ever do so, switched his opinion just this year).

A moderate level of warming, if it continues at all, is more likely to be beneficial for mankind and society than harmful. The average temperature of the globe is roughly 54F. Man-- and the species we depend upon-- prefer a temperature closer to 70F. A small increase means longer growing seasons, more abundant crops, fewer crop-killing frosts, and generally a more mild climate. In short, an identical situation to that of the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period in which civilization flourished. (That's why they called it a climate "optimum", afer all).

RE: What??? Say it ain't so Jim!!!
By paydirt on 11/12/2008 8:53:05 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting stuff folks. I would like to add that even if you accept that the Earth had only 10X CO2 "back in the day," there wasn't a case of a "runaway" greenhouse situation. For those truly frightened about "runaway" greenhouse and GW, I want you to really, really think on that.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki