Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Brugdor on August 10, 2007, 04:55:56 PM
-
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 9, 2007 11:49 AM
An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
Corrected NASA data is here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)
Oops! ::)
-
From the same site (the NASA site, not the blog):
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif)
-
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-
From the same site (the NASA site, not the blog):
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif)
What am I missing? All I see is a little icon.
-
Yer browser be da pits den!
-
Some more info relating to the original blog/post:
Data posted refers to chart on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ 'Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States'
so it actually points to 1934 as the year with the biggest 'change', not the highest temperature.
It also refers only to the US, not to the entire world.
And the author is correct. It will probably receive little or no attention from the mainstream media because THE FUCKUP WHO WROTE THE BLOG HAS NO CLUE AT HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND IS A FUCKING WHOREMONGER ATTENTION GETTING SHITHEAD WITH THE IQ OF A FENCEPOST!
And yes, as a matter of fact, I do feel better.
-
haha. Well, it's interesting stuff nonetheless.
I still believe that we have a climate change. I don't believe it's the sole fault of a few American companies. But I'm all for making the world a better place without the need for a global warming boogeyman looming on the horizon with his hammer and scythe, laughing maniacally like some terrible mixed metaphor.
-
Doesn't really matter if it is cataclysmic or the slow death of a thousand needles...
"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."
or even this...
"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. "
-
Some more info relating to the original blog/post:
Data posted refers to chart on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ 'Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States'
so it actually points to 1934 as the year with the biggest 'change', not the highest temperature.
It also refers only to the US, not to the entire world.
Umm...I'm going on very little sleep here so if I'm wrong I'm wrong but the mean is the exact middle of the two extremes, correct? So when looking at the lowest and highest temps in the US, this graph shows that 1934 was the highest of all years compared to the mean which means it would be the warmest year. To put it another way, the biggest change upward from the mean would be the warmest temp.
Also the "it's only the US" argument would fly if the GW folks didn't constantly use US-only temps to try and justify their data.
-
Yer browser be da pits den!
It would help to know what you posted so I could see what I might need to change in Firefox. Was it a pic or what?
-
Data posted refers to chart on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ 'Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States'
Bluecross confuses me. I just see a Cross.
Bluecross is crazy.
-
To put it another way, the biggest change upward from the mean would be the warmest temp.
Um... no.
Also the "it's only the US" argument would fly if the GW folks didn't constantly use US-only temps to try and justify their data.
If you say "warmest year in the world" and point to data that points only to the US, then you are stupid (the blogger, not you).
-
Um... no.
Explain.
If you say "warmest year in the world" and point to data that points only to the US, then you are stupid (the blogger, not you).
But my point was that this has been done repeatedly by the GW people using this particular (though uncorrected) study.
-
And my point was that the blogger took data, twisted it to fit his view of the world, and was basically clueless (or dishonest).
I kinda like sticking to the point.
-
And my point was that the blogger took data, twisted it to fit his view of the world, and was basically clueless (or dishonest).
I kinda like sticking to the point.
And yet you won't explain why the the year with the largest variant from the mean isn't the warmest year.
I mean seriously, am I just too tired to see something really obvious here? It's entirely possible. If I'm missing something explain what it is.
-
The 'mean' is a moving average over a period of time (in this case, I believe 30 years). So the 'mean' for one year is not necessarily the same as the mean for another year.
And on a scale where the average temp per year is rising, then the mean certainly is not the same for year to year.
And while it is possible that 1934 could be the 'warmest' year, it is not the warmest year because the delta from the mean was the largest in that year.
-
The 'mean' is a moving average over a period of time (in this case, I believe 30 years). So the 'mean' for one year is not necessarily the same as the mean for another year.
And on a scale where the average temp per year is rising, then the mean certainly is not the same for year to year.
And while it is possible that 1934 could be the 'warmest' year, it is not the warmest year because the delta from the mean was the largest in that year.
But how was the mean here calculated? I assumed it was taking all years in the study into account.
-
"in this case, I believe 30 years"
30 years. Moving average. Stated before.
-
"in this case, I believe 30 years"
30 years. Moving average. Stated before.
Followup
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
I think we should continue to look into this as I'm not convinced you have the numbers to back up your assessment. It may very well be that they are wrong but I find it odd that even the other detractors posting on these sites haven't brought up the point you made.
Part of the problem mentioned on the page I linked -
This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases. The poor correction for site location and urbanization are still huge issues that bias recent numbers upwards. The GISS also has issues with how it aggregates multiple stations, apparently averaging known good stations with bad stations a process that by no means eliminates biases. As a first step, we must demand that NOAA and GISS release their methodology and computer algorithms to the general public for detailed scrutiny by other scientists.
-
*picks up bat, ball, and glove, and goes to play in 'how to unhook bra' thread*
-
I'm still a bit confused on how the mean system works as well.
I mean they move it to show a rate of change (as BC put it delta) but wouldn't it be a little easier just to give us the data in the form of average yearly temperature, as in the mean of all temperature data from the same times of the same days for a year?
That's what I think is confusing. Some of the data that people use to tout global warming is stuff like "well it jumped from 60 degrees to 80 degrees in two days this year!" an anti-global warmist will say "but then it dropped from 60 to 20 this year." But downward trends don't count apparently.
I believe in the trend, but I think the cause is what's throwing us. People are simultaneously saying "greenhouse gas increase" and "ozone layer depletion" are both causing the trend. But all the studies they use take into account a formula that uses atmospheric levels which remain constant. That's just ridiculous. We don't even know what would happen to our cloud layer if we lost all our ozone, and we have no idea what effect on ozone a 100% greenhouse gas effect would have. But no one says "I dunno" they say "ZOMG IT'S HOT STOP USING HAIRSPRAY"
Well prove the hairspray is doing it. The burden of proof here is on the accuser. Prove without using bogus models what the cause of the visible effect is, and then all the world will be FORCED to act by law. Studies we have now are freaking worthless for proving or disproving anything, they end up just being argued out.
-
Man, that is one ill-explained figure. What is 0? Change as compared to last year? If this is the case, then the graph illustrates acceleration in temperature (which kinda makes sense), but it does not make 1934 the warmest year. Suppose 1933 had an average temperature of 10 degrees Celsius. If 1934 had an average temperature of 11 C, 1934 would be marked as a 1 on the figure. However, if 1997 had an average temperature 30 C, and 1998 had 30.5 C, 1998 would be 0.5 on the figure.
It's late and I didn't spend a lot of time on this, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.
-
But I think it's deviation from the mean of the 30 year periods, not the last year.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/NATION02/108150084/1008&template=nextpage
He was responding to our item yesterday about a Page 2 headline discovered in the Nov. 2, 1922, edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." The newspaper told how "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
Mr. Christenson took the opportunity to forward an institute study outlining how the media, including the New York Times, Newsweek and Time, have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the past 100 years.
"It would appear that media hype is as cyclical as the climate," he concludes.
Interesting...