Author Topic: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data  (Read 3451 times)

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« on: August 10, 2007, 05:18:54 AM »
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

Quote
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.
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2007, 05:32:35 AM »
I have been a big fan of what this guy and the folks at surfacestation.org have been doing. If you look at some of the site reports at surfacestation, some of the photos showing OFFICIAL weather stations are incredible, and looking at multiple historical events at the site clearly indicate inaccurate temps. For instance, installing air conditioners right next to a station in year "X", and suddenly seeing increased average temps from year "X" to present. Duh.

I think this ground-truthing effort is going shake up the anthropogenic global warming community. And the funny part is that the global warming at these stations IS anthropogenic, because who put heat sources next to the stations?  laugh
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2007, 07:48:01 AM »
Quote
I think this ground-truthing effort is going shake up the anthropogenic global warming community.

Oh, I doubt it: they already have their "minds" made up the only thing that will save our poor, poor planet is more government, and they're highly unlikely to be confused by mere facts.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2007, 08:05:47 AM »
"Global warming" is a messianic religious movement impervious to factual analysis.  All it needs is a Danse Macabre, and that will come.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Mannlicher

  • Grumpy Old Gator
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,435
  • The Bonnie Blue
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2007, 10:46:22 AM »
and don't lose sight of the fact that the Global Warming accolytes are dedicated to the destruction of America, and Western Democracies, and the establishment of  a Socialist New World Order...........

or something like that.  rolleyes

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,499
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2007, 11:46:08 AM »
I can hear it now...

LIES! LIES FROM LIARS! LIES FROM LYING LIARS WHO LIE A LOT!
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,466
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2007, 12:26:10 PM »

Please tell us you're not ghost-writing for Al Franken.   shocked
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2007, 04:33:45 PM »
someone get wacki to set us on the path of righteousness

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,655
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2007, 04:43:20 PM »
someone get wacki to set us on the path of righteousness
I'm sure he'll be along any moment to tell us how wrong we are to place any stock in this article.
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2007, 04:51:45 PM »
someone get wacki to set us on the path of righteousness
I'm sure he'll be along any moment to tell us how wrong we are to place any stock in this article.

The adjustments are legit but this article is far from accurate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

One of these pictures is before the adjustment and one of them is after:




Keep in mind these are graphs of the US records.  The article claims these changes are "truly astounding".   While it did change some records in the US the global records stayed pretty much the same.  The changes to the US records simply weren't big enough to affect the global averages.  Globally 1998 2005 is still the warmest years. Did this article mention that 2005 is still the global record?  No.  Did the article mention multi-year averages?  No.  I let you decide if this article is behaving honestly by leaving out these little tidbits.  The only significant change seems to be that the climate critics now seem to magically believe the US surface records when before they insisted that they were faked.  When the US breaks a new heat record in a few short years will the climate critics do an about face on the US surface record once again?  Will the surface record go from real (1998 argument) to fake (post 2005) to real (now--->?) to fake?  Only time will tell.......

m1911owner

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2007, 06:18:29 PM »
It does appear that we are indeed finally (& slowly) coming out of the Little Ice Age:



grin grin  Most excellent!  grin grin

Harold Tuttle

  • Professor Chromedome
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2007, 06:40:03 PM »
get those baby mammoth genes a cloning!
"The true mad scientist does not make public appearances! He does not wear the "Hello, my name is.." badge!
He strikes from below like a viper or on high like a penny dropped from the tallest building around!
He only has one purpose--Do bad things to good people! Mit science! What good is science if no one gets hurt?!"

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2007, 07:00:36 PM »
Quote
It does appear that we are indeed finally coming out of the Little Ice Age.

I was just reading an article the other day (which unfortunately I can't find to link to) with an environmental / global warming bent to the rising water temperature in Lake Superior. What I thought amusing was that the author even stated, "this remnant of the glacial age..." Of course it's getting warmer, we're in the middle of an inter-ice age.

Take an ice cube out of the freezer and put it in a glass. Solid water. Then it melts into cold water. Then the cold water begins equalizing to the ambient temperature. Wow -- basic thermodynamics, just like in the once frozen Lake Superior except on a small, fast, human comprehensible scale. Put the glass of water back in the freezer and guess what happens? Guess what happens when we enter another ice age in 10K or so years?

People need to stop thinking about climate change in human timescales.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

m1911owner

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2007, 07:07:18 PM »
Something I'm wondering is how much of this "global warming" that's been measured is due to the legions of volunteers who read the temperature measurement stations having a conscious or unconscious bias towards seeing higher temperatures, and therefore tending to round up more frequently?

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2007, 07:09:37 PM »
This sentence from the article:

Quote
The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

apparently has nothing to do with reality.  The error in adjustments has nothing to do with the infamous Y2K computer bug.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2007, 07:16:56 PM »
Quote
It does appear that we are indeed finally coming out of the Little Ice Age.

I was just reading an article the other day (which unfortunately I can't find to link to) with an environmental / global warming bent to the rising water temperature in Lake Superior. What I thought amusing was that the author even stated, "this remnant of the glacial age..." Of course it's getting warmer, we're in the middle of an inter-ice age.

Quote
It does appear that we are indeed finally (& slowly) coming out of the Little Ice Age:

If this were true then we would see a corresponding trend in the Milankovitch cycles that drive the ice ages.  Our climate would also be changing at a rate consistent with the changes of the past.  Neither one of these are the case..... not even close.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2007, 07:47:20 PM »
Quote
If this were true then we would see a corresponding trend in the Milankovitch cycles that drive the ice ages.  Our climate would also be changing at a rate consistent with the changes of the past.  Neither one of these are the case..... not even close.

I appreciate that you mention Milankovitch cycles, as they seem to be ignored by a good many people in the anthropogenic global warming camp. But again, how do we define consistency? A hundred years? A thousand? A hundred thousand? Climate is a dynamic variable. There can be a lot of inconsistency over ten thousand years that becomes statistical noise in a hundred thousand or three hundred thousand years. We have evidence to indicate that the climate a billion years ago was so different it wouldn't sustain human life. We've not cycled back to that. We may be cycling into something completely new in the next billion. Either way, humans are an incredibly, incredibly small portion of the planetary climate equation.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Antibubba

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,836
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2007, 08:59:35 PM »
Quote
Guess what happens when we enter another ice age in 10K or so years?

People need to stop thinking about climate change in human timescales. 


Humans have trouble thinking past the next weekend, let alone in larger chunks.
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2007, 11:56:57 PM »
Here's the take on this from, you know, an actual scientist:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/10/is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-it-just-me/

Basically, this drops one year off the "hottest" list.

Quote
But even if we take him on his word, what he said is still misleading! Look at the dates, and think about it. These data are culled from a table that goes back from 1880 to 2006, a 127 year interval. If there were no warming trend at all, youd expect the hottest 10 years to be randomly distributed in that 127 range, or roughly 1 hottest year in the top ten every 12.7 years (call it 13). But look at the data! In the last 13 year bin alone, from 1994 - 2006, we see 3 of the Top Ten years (2006, 1998, 1999). Another was in the second to last bin (1990). Then there is nothing before that until we go back to 1953.

...
The x-axis is year since 1880, and the y-axis is the temperature deviation from average. You see two big bumps, the one in the 1930s and the recent one since 1980 or so. Curious, I looked at the average deviation for 1930 to 1942, to encompass that bump, and got +0.44 degrees (if I go only to 1941 I get +0.47, which is a bit higher since 1942 was a cooler than average year, but not including it would be cherry-picking, so I left it in).

For the 1994 to 2006 bin I get a deviation of +0.57. The average temperature in the second bump is 0.1 degrees higher than the first. In other words, it was warmer on average in the last 13 years than any time in recorded history.


I am still going to trust consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities.  You know, real scientists, not those backed by oil companies, like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.  All these orgs got money from Exxon Mobil, for instance.

This is the same kind of science the tobbaco lobby used to try and tell people that smoking was good for you.
Honestly, I don't care all that much; I'll be dead as the problem gets bad.

And another thing: What's wrong with wanting to get off of fossil fuels?  Even if global warming WAS male bovine excrement, we should do it anyway; just so we can tell Saudi Arabia to kiss our glutius maximus.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2007, 05:23:29 AM »
Quote
If this were true then we would see a corresponding trend in the Milankovitch cycles that drive the ice ages.  Our climate would also be changing at a rate consistent with the changes of the past.  Neither one of these are the case..... not even close.

I appreciate that you mention Milankovitch cycles, as they seem to be ignored by a good many people in the anthropogenic global warming camp. But again, how do we define consistency? A hundred years? A thousand? A hundred thousand?

This question is a little too vague for me respond to.

Quote
Climate is a dynamic variable. There can be a lot of inconsistency over ten thousand years that becomes statistical noise in a hundred thousand or three hundred thousand years. We have evidence to indicate that the climate a billion years ago was so different it wouldn't sustain human life. We've not cycled back to that. We may be cycling into something completely new in the next billion.

The largest extinction event known to man is called the great dying and was caused by volcanoes releasing CO2 in massive quantities.  We are now *artificially* reproducing those exact same conditions.

Quote
Either way, humans are an incredibly, incredibly small portion of the planetary climate equation.

Isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves that we are in fact making a big change in the atmosphere.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2007, 05:24:46 AM »
Nitrogen,

Thanks for responding with that link!  It's so good to hear the voice of reason and educated debate on this topic.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2007, 05:31:26 AM »
Quote
This question is a little too vague for me respond to.

The rest of that portion of my reply explained it. What is considered inconsistent in a 100 year measuring period will not even be measurable in a 100,000 period.

"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2007, 06:02:21 AM »
Quote
This question is a little too vague for me respond to.

The rest of that portion of my reply explained it. What is considered inconsistent in a 100 year measuring period will not even be measurable in a 100,000 period.


We have yearly resolution in the ice cores.  Whether or not you looking at 100 years of data or 1,000,000 years of data won't change that.  The current rate of change is 10x faster than anything that happened in the past million years.  The current direction of change conflicts with trends in both solar and Milankovitch cycles.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2007, 06:26:24 AM »
Quote
The current rate of change is 10x faster than anything that happened in the past million years.

This is only back to 100K and 450K years, but the trend of the last 10K years doesn't look much different than past inter ice age trends.

"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,188
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2007, 06:44:11 AM »
Quote
If this were true then we would see a corresponding trend in the Milankovitch cycles that drive the ice ages.  Our climate would also be changing at a rate consistent with the changes of the past.  Neither one of these are the case..... not even close.

You also just provided a link to a quote from the agency I work for regarding this in Amongst Friends:

Quote
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
 While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Again, it's all about everyone focusing on short term temp increases that affect human society ("climate change in the 21st century"). Humans just need to get over it and drive on, because that's what the planet will be doing a million years from now (after getting a lot hotter and a lot colder than we will ever see in our lifetimes).

And regarding the separation of politics from science mentioned in the other thread, I guarantee you that is a commerce quote from my agency. Global Warming and Homeland Security are the two biggest funding buzzwords we have for all our program areas.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."