Today on C-Span 2:
Posted on 05/04/2008 4:12:29 AM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
Methodology used by NASA to estimate rates of climate change are resulting in dramatic shifts in previously published historical temperature data, causing figures for estimated global surface temperature prior to 1970 to now be lower and figures since 1970 to now be higher – and appearing to provide evidence for those who say the Earth is warming.
John Goetz, writing last month in the science blog Climate Audit, analyzed the way NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates estimated global surface temperatures and showed that the addition of new, contemporary data could "have a ripple effect all the way back to the beginning of a [weather] station's history."
Goetz found 32 different versions of published global annual averages going back to Sept. 24, 2005, that showed the published figures – figures used as a baseline to demonstrate change through time – changing hundreds of times.
"On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years," he wrote. "The largest single jump was 0.27 °C. This occurred between the Oct. 13, 2006 and Jan. 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43 °C to +0.70 °C, a change of nearly 68 percent."
Temperature anomalies – differences between the average measured global air temperature and some long-term mean – are primary data for studies of climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Figures never lie,but liars figure.
Sometimes....facts are not facts. Sometimes....data is not data. Sometimes....accuracy is not accurate.
I wish we could put these NASA guys into the baseball statistics department, and maybe we could find a way to have Hank Aaron’s home run record notched up another 100 home runs...to knock Barry off his pedestal. The fortune thing for us? They aren’t into some plan to launch to Mars anytime soon, with real or imaginary or inaccurate data.
Of course, WND demonstrates a horrible understanding of statistics, and distorts the picture itself.
Can’t trust either side. :-(
The problem is that you just don’t understand the data.
Everything cools after it is first cooked. Therefore the older temperatures must be adjusted downward as time goes by.
The more recent temperatures must be increased because of previous false assumptions that all data must be treated as actually true, not relatively true.
Everyone knows there is no absolute truth anymore.
“‘Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.
George Orwell said it quite well.
Everything cools after its first cooked. Good line !
Intentionally changing recorded scientific data is the greatest sin that a scientist can do. I once had to fire a technician for doing this very thing. Whoever has made these modification to the weather database needs to find themselves in the unemployment line.
Or, “If you torture the numbers, they’ll tell you what you what to know.”
James Hansen, from October 2004:
"Several years ago I received the Heinz Environment Award. I don't know who nominated me for that award or how the selection works."
"I am confident that it has no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
"In the upcoming election I will vote for John Kerry."
Source: Columbia University.edu [pdf]:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf
Also see: Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187
Actually, in the most recent round, GISS numbers jumped back down more than the others. I think Hansen knows he’s getting caught red-handed.
Global Warming scientist remind me of Soviet historians, who could unfailingly foretell the future, but could not predict the ever changing past.
Clearly, the solution is to use carbon offset revenues to purchase freon-substitute cooling and refrigeration machinery to store these global records. This has to be implemented carefully, lest the records become supercooled, and cause Global Cooling.
Climate change means never having to say you’re sorry.
You think the thousands of enviro-weenie meteorologists out there might just be manipulating the current data to protect their beloved Gaia and eliminate those eeeeeeeevil SUVs?
Agreed.
I once had to fire a technician for doing this very thing.
Likewise.
Whoever has made these modification to the weather database needs to find themselves in the unemployment line.
The data (recorded information) weren't changed. Adjustments were made to the data, out in the open. This is different from falsifying your raw data.
NOAA discusses the basis for the adjustments. Many (all?) of these methods have been published in peer-reviewed journals. See also the USHCN Main Page that references it.
While the end results are debatable, and the methodology might have been politically biased, etc., it's not fraud of the type that you mentioned (e.g., a technician getting a water level from a well that he didn't realize had been plugged since the last time he was at the site :-).
One plus one equals two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.