I have no idea if this is true, but if it is–there should be a Congressional inquiry. Powerline–a skeptical blog. to be sure–is reporting that NASA has changed its data, taking out adjustments for the “urban island effect.” and consequently, making the apparent rise in temperature during the last century appear more dramatic than it really was. From the blog:
NOAA and NASA used to acknowledge the urban heat island effect and try to correct for it, but that didn’t produce the sort of alarming temperature increases that warmists are looking for. This is how NOAA depicted US temperatures from 1880 to 1999, as posted on NASA’s web site in 1999; click to enlarge:
James Hansen, the head of NASA’s climate unit and one of the worst of the alarmists, said truthfully in 1999:
The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
That didn’t get the warmists where they were trying to go, so they have now changed the data by eliminating or drastically reducing the urban heat island effect. NASA now shows very different data for the period 1880-1999 from what it published in 1999. This animated GIF shows how the alarmists changed their own data to create the false impression of a climate crisis:
Of course, the new data could be more accurate than the former data, rather than, as charged, an adjustment intended to create a false impression.
There are ways to find out. First, call Hanson and others into a committee hearing and ask them to explain whether they made the changes, and if so, why. As I said, it could have been because the information is more accurate, or the old method of adjusting temperatures to make up for urban temperatures was inaccurate.
Also, let independent scientists have access to the raw data so that the conclusions NASA reached can be verified. But apparently NASA is resisting complying with requests for the information:
You probably assume that NOAA and NASA have made their raw data available to independent researchers, along with explanations of the adjustments they have made. But no–those agencies have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for the original, raw data. One of the most important things the new Congress can do is to force these government agencies to level with the American people and explain the manipulations to which they have been subjecting weather data for years.
Considering the import of the subject and the credibility hits the global warming alarmists have taken in the last year or so, one would think that NASA and Hanson would be eager to rebut this very serious charge.
Like I said, I don’t know if this is true. But as a layman, this sure seems worth investigating. Then, if the charge is false, we can judge Powerline’s credibility as well.
January 30th, 2011 | 7:02 pm
I stopped reading at “I have no idea if this is true . . .”
January 30th, 2011 | 7:28 pm
They’ve covered their tails by having papers to wave and claim they disprove the urban heat island effect, even though (as the link at Powerline points out) the “proof” that there’s not really a UHIE was based on bad data.
January 30th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
I read on. A few points from a cursory look.
The original article was written by Joseph D’Aleo, co-founder of the Weather Channel, noted climate skeptic, and former weatherman. D’Aleo’s article was picked up by John Hinderaker, lawyer, climate skeptic, and conservablogger at Powerline. Neither author shared the source for their information. Hinderaker appears to have constructed the comparison animation. The greatest difference between the two graphs was from new data, added after 1999. Both D’Aleo and Hinderaker claim the data were modified but provide no evidence other than the unsourced graphs.
The original graph was labeled “US” and appears to represent US and not global temperature records. The US land mass, although important to us, represents only 2 percent of the Earth’s surface. It is also well recognized by genuine climate scientists that the US has not warmed as much as other Earth regions. Hinderaker unintentionally conflates US temperature with global temperatures, a rookie mistake. Note also that the NASA-GISS temperature record is only one such record available. There are others, including weather balloon data and a satellite based systems, that all show the same increase in global temperature.
The satellite measurements also show cooling in the stratosphere, consistent with the retention of heat in the lower atmosphere. Satellites demonstrate decreases in the both the area and volume of arctic ice. The oceans are warming, too, and sea levels are rising from the thermal expansion of water. Global humidity is increasing, consistent with warming.
“I have no idea if this is true or not”, you typed, yet you have thousands of climate scientists on one side of the argument and a right-wing lawyer and right-wing former weatherman on the other. In fact, a reasonably independent person would have an idea in Hinderaker’s claims were true or not.
Finally, Hinderaker claims that the raw data and methods have been kept hidden. This is blatantly untrue, likely another unintentional oversight on Hinderaker’s part. The data are available and have been used in dozens of temperature reconstructions using different corrections and different programs. Global warming is a consistent finding.
Evidence supporting the warming of the Earth is overwhelming and is consistent with the demonstrated increase in greenhouse gases.
January 30th, 2011 | 9:34 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap, Colby Heckler. Colby Heckler said: Global Warming Hysteria: Did NASA Cook the Books on Warming … http://bit.ly/gnBA4M [...]
January 30th, 2011 | 10:55 pm
Jeffrey’s comment cleared the water considerably, but I’d like to post the results of 15 minutes on NASA’s website.
I honestly don’t know where Power Line got the impression NASA stopped taking the urban heat island effect into account, because this sounds awfully like it:
…the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
(See also this recent press release from NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html.)
Also of interest is NASA’s page with updates to its surface temperature analysis: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
NASA is quite open about how it improves its analysis. None of the changes resemble what the Power Line post alleges.
January 30th, 2011 | 11:22 pm
Jeffery, the graphic is from NOAA’s data, not NASA’s, even though it came from NASA’s site.
They also do the who-said-what thing, and have a bunch of links to further information.
Notably, they don’t show how the data has been adjusted from the original because they say NASA and NOAA have been resisting FOIA requests for that data– you want to disprove it, just show them releasing the raw data.
I’m rather against trusting you, because you make the same stupid argument that manages to discount all scientists (including in relevant fields) that do not believe in AGW, while ignoring all the evidence of book-cooking. (Climategate? The complaints by scientists who contributed to the IPCC that their findings were misconstrued?)
Oh, why bother– it’s a bloody religious fight, anyways, I’ll no more change your mind than I’ll make Singer decide that someone with Down’s is as worthy a human as himself.
January 30th, 2011 | 11:51 pm
What happens when the unadjusted data gets out:
http://patterico.com/2011/01/30/britain%E2%80%99s-met-office-caught-hiding-the-decline/
When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.
Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.
January 30th, 2011 | 11:55 pm
Perhaps it’s time to subpoena bloggers and pundits for Congressional investigations. Should dishonest typists such as John Hinderaker, Joe D’Aleo, Jim Hoft and Michelle Malkin and lying pundits such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh be forced to explain themselves for their horrid performances the last decade? Glenn Beck has lied more than Jim Hansen. Why shouldn’t Beck be grilled? Oh, because citizens have the right to speak without government suppression? Should that standard apply to scientists?
So now that you have an idea if this is true or not, what do you plan to do?
January 31st, 2011 | 9:32 am
Foxfier,
I DO trust the climate scientists much more than I trust the anti-science blog community, who have a demonstrated history of disseminating misinformation. To me, the totality of the evidence in support of global warming is much stronger than the arguments of the skeptics. The current kerfluffle revives the “they faked the data” claim. Please answer a few direct questions for me:
Why is the temperature trend (global warming) the same for urban and rural instrument records?
Why is the temperature trend (global warming) the same for weather balloon records?
Why is the temperature trend (global warming) the same for satellite records?
Why does the satellite record show stratospheric cooling?
Why have ocean volumes increased?
Science is hard. Collecting and analyzing evidence requires years of training followed by years of tedious work, all for less compensation than a derivatives salesman makes in a week. Saying “You lie!” is easy. Fun, too.
I followed your links and found the source of your argument, a supposed letter sent from the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Director Bennie Peiser to the Met Office stating that the temperature record had been altered. No evidence, no data, just a claim. The GWPF is a skeptic organization (and a UK charity with tax advantages) that refuses to identify its funding sources. If Mr. Peiser has evidence that the Met Office improperly handled the raw temperature data he should show it, rather than start a whisper campaign that erupts in a shouting campaign the right-wing blogosphere.
And no, I do not accept as fact John Hinderaker’s claim that the data and methods are unavailable. Please check the citation below and follow the links to find multiple reanalyses of the raw data.
You are wrong about global warming being a religion. You can change my mind today with credible evidence that the Earth is not warming. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t warn you the evidence in favor of warming is overwhelming.
If you are at all interested in the other side of your argument visit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
And I didn’t call you stupid, even once.
Science is hard. Blogging is easy.
January 31st, 2011 | 9:56 am
Jeffery, you forget that Hansen works for the government (that’s our tax $’s ), when he isn’t over in the UK protesting at power plants.
A simple request would be, has past raw data been changed (pre 1999)? Many a older engineer & scientist will remember when data was recorded in ink, in data books, to prevent later book “cooking”.
Remember many of these “scientists” who proclaim man causing global warming are on the receiving end of these “energy” grants.
January 31st, 2011 | 10:28 am
“Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.”
Source: “Are surface temperature records reliable?” Advanced version by John Cook, Skeptical Science, Aug, 30, 2010
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
January 31st, 2011 | 1:55 pm
J. Bob,
To my knowledge the climate scientists have made no attempt to hide their funding sources. Would that skeptics be so forthcoming!
Does accepting federal money suggest to you that the scientists only reach conclusions that the government approves? If yes, what is the US government’s interest in affirming global warming?
January 31st, 2011 | 4:17 pm
Let me add this. The GOP proposal to investigate climate scientists is an effort to use the power of the state to intimidate researchers who report information the majority does not want to hear.
This is a chilling development but is not unexpected from right-wint authoritarians.
January 31st, 2011 | 7:27 pm
These adjustments were described 10 years ago and the trendline here is just continued for more data points incorporated in 2000-2001. The government gave us an answer 10 years ago. Take a look, all the answers we need are right here, no investigation required:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
These basement climatologists are nothing more than a bunch of complete dunderheads. It’s mere foolishness to turn to them for any intelligent analysis.
February 1st, 2011 | 8:36 am
I have to disagree with David on a couple of points.
One, the link he supplied runs on for 24 pages! Twenty four pages of detailed explanation on the data adjustments that D’Leo, Hinderaker and Smith say don’t exist! No conservablogger is going to read (or have read to him/her) 24 pages (and no pictures). One needs to condense the 24 pages of explanation to a paragraph, or better yet a single sentence. May I suggest the fair and balanced, “Did NASA Cook the Books on Warming Statistics?”
Two, calling the skeptical denialists ‘dunderheads’ is improper and counterproductive. The cementheads that deny the obvious fact of global warming should be accorded the respect they deserve.
February 1st, 2011 | 8:52 am
“Remember many of these “scientists” who proclaim man causing global warming are on the receiving end of these “energy” grants.”
And just as many who claim there is no such thing as man-made global warming are on the receiving end of petrochemical and other polluting industry “grants.” I think the solution to who cooked which books may be as simple as: “follow the money.”
February 1st, 2011 | 11:09 am
Given how I previously pointed out the data describing the adjustment in the plots, may we now realize there is no need for an investigation and instead judge the credibility of “Powerline”?
February 2nd, 2011 | 9:59 am
Jeffery, could you ref. one peer reviewed paper that has ruled out NATURAL, internal climate cycles for the increase in global temperature?
You have to remember there is a lot we don’t know about climate, and this is a very infant science in terms of geological time.
February 2nd, 2011 | 4:27 pm
J. Bob,
Here are discussions of natural climate cycles that include references.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
You are correct that there is a lot we don’t understand about climate, but there’s also a lot we do know. The best explanation for the heat imbalance we are currently experiencing is man-made atmospheric greenhouse gases. It is still possible that an unknown natural event or cycle could be responsible, but we do not know what that would be. It doesn’t appear to be solar cycles, cosmic rays, Milankovitch cycles etc.
Most likely we are entering the warmest period on Earth of the past 12,000 years, the period of time when human civilization evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
February 3rd, 2011 | 9:33 am
Jeffery, so far only could be’s and may be’s. Sorry, no paper, no cigar.
P.S. Note the wikipedia guy responsible got the GW area got banned for slanting the stories. Seems he didn’t like contrary opinion. Compare RealClimate that blocks posts, contrary to their “gospel” and WUWT which posts both sides.
February 3rd, 2011 | 11:43 am
I think everyone has a right to be skeptical of all information. Both sides in this arguement, including the prophet Al Gore have a lot of money to be gained from rigging the science. To accept these thoeries and the money that governements want to steal from people without hard evidence, with less than open sourced data, seems less than prudent. Provide open data beyond reproach and people will listen. Unfortunately in this day and age science has been corrupted by money/agendas on both sides and is no longer trustworthy.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact