backtop


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 Climateaudit.org. 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: This is what I love about the scientific method
By Surak on 11/12/2008 1:54:35 AM , Rating: -1
Carbon 14 isotope measurements prove that Humans are the biggest contribution to atmospheric CO2. There is no doubt.

Carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment. Carbon 14 is unstable and decays over time.

Fossil Fuels are greatly depleted in Carbon 14 due to having no interaction with the atmosphere for millions of years.

CO2 produced naturally by the biosphere is not depleted in carbon 14.

If somehow the biosphere produced far more CO2 than humans do by burning fossil fuels, the Carbon 14 proportion in atmospheric CO2 would not be dropping much at all.

But it is dropping, matching what would be expected if we are by far the primary source of CO2.

Now unless you've got proof that there are several volcanic events of the scale of the Yellowstone Super Volcano happening every year and going entirely unnoticed producing the depleted CO2, it's time for you to shut up and become part of the solution instead of being willfully ignorant.

Seriously, it would take 100 times the earth's current volcanic activity to add as much depleted CO2 to the atmosphere as we do by burning fossil fuels.

Finding some data entry problem or exposing one quack in the midst of thousands of experts won't change things.

We are the source, and if we don't do something about it, we will be living in a world that we are not well adapted to. The resulting geopolitical anarchy will kill us long before we overheat.

The question is not whether life will go on with higher CO2 ... it's whether or not humanity will.


RE: This is what I love about the scientific method
By rhuarch on 11/12/2008 2:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
Your argument doesn't make any sense, you are just restating an argument you already made which was addressed (I think) very effectively by Mr. Asher. Why do you persist on this fixation with volcanoes? Volcanoes aren't a significant source of atmospheric carbon; c14 or otherwise.

ANY long term carbon sink that released it's stored carbon would be significantly depleted of C14. Some examples might include carbon burps from the ocean floor, thawed permafrost, maybe that "unknown sink" that AGWs are always speaking of so fearfully.

Certainly the burning of fossil fuels is one contributor of C14 depleted atmospheric carbon. The fact remains however, that we just haven't emitted anywhere near enough carbon to account for even a significant percentage of the increase, much less the total. And since the earth has not really warmed significantly you couldn't even claim (honestly) that the fraction of a percent of the increase that we can be blamed for was the forcing agent leading to the "warming" that released the rest of the carbon from other sinks.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki