An inconvenient update

[mawilson 2,133]

Last week, statistician and amateur meteorologist Steve McIntyre notified NASA of an

error in its climate data. The results of the hasty correction mean that as far as the US

is concerned, 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. 1934 is.

Headline-grabbing statements that nine out of ten of the hottest years on record were

in the last decade are no longer correct, for the US, at least (bad news for Mr Gore,

certainly). And those who remain sceptical about the nature of the link between human

activity and global warming were delighted, as the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

had to quietly admit the mistake and publish corrected data.

But what does this mean for the rest of us? What was the glitch? Where was the miscalculation?

And do we need to check our data? Can we all hop into our Humvees and barrel around

town, untroubled by our carbon emissions?

Goddard itself says the change is not significant enough to change the overall trends

associated with global warming. Is it right?

Richard Allen, environmental systems scientist at the Centre for Atmospheric Science,

thinks the revision is not worth getting too agitated about.

"The US only provides two per cent of the data, so it is not important as far as global

temperature change goes," he told us.

But this is only true if we assume the rest of the world is not suffering from a similar (or

entirely different) glitch. So what was the problem?

"What happens is that station data [the raw temperature readings from US weather stations]

are corrected for slight changes, such as urbanisation. NOAA [National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration] in the US normally does this, it supplies it in near real time

to GISS and NASA. But for some reason, they stopped doing this, and some stations

didn't have their corrections. Now they do." Allen explains.

Allen argues that discontinuities like this do tend to get picked up pretty quickly, and says

this whole episode is a good example of how this happens. "Nothing is perfect," he says.

"But there are a lot of scientists out there who are working very carefully. So it is unlikely

that it is a big problem."

Because the error in the US data is so specific to the way the US manages its figures, it

seems unlikely that the data from the rest of the world will be afflicted by the same problem.

Meanwhile, McIntyre is unhappy with the way Goddard handled the situation. He says that

the failure to put out an official announcement of the update left GISS open to accusations

that it being less than frank.

The rather taciturn handling of the change has provoked some to wonder whether a revision

in the opposite direction might have been given more prominence. And who can honestly

say that it wouldn't?

That alone should be a sobering thought for those working in the field.

But botched PR doesn't prove that global warming isn't happening. That changes had to be

made needs to be taken seriously. The scientific community should take note and make sure

the rest of the data is in order.

For those who are interested, the old data is here, and the recalculated data is here. The

old and new temperatures differ by a hundredth of a degree.

Source

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As much as the author wants to adopt a certain position from this - his article essentially answers his own questions.

[GaryC 7]

This just proves my point, GW may or may not be real. It may be just our lack of understanding or it may be faulty science. To take a dubious theory based on incomplete or faulty observations and the blame it on humans is very poor science. We just found out that one of AlGores central points in his movie, the Atlantic ocean "conveyor belt", is slowing down is wrong. There is also a new ocean current near Australia that has just been discovered. Add to it faulty temperature measurements and the models that scientists use are thrown out the window. There is no telling how many other "facts" that GW alarmists use are going to be found to be wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm.... what does this suggest:

That its perfectly fine and responsible to "hop into our Humvees and barrel around town"?

That its ok to massively deforest large swathes of land?

That its ok to continue with intensive farming practices which cause desertification?

[GaryC 7]

Hmmm.... what does this suggest:

That its perfectly fine and responsible to "hop into our Humvees and barrel around town"?

That its ok to massively deforest large swathes of land?

That its ok to continue with intensive farming practices which cause desertification?

No, it means we have no idea what the truth is. I have no problem with conservation, I do have a real problem with someone going off half cocked and claim that we are causing GW and we must turn our lives up-side down to stop it. Study this more, find out what the truth is before we start implementing expensive and possibly ineffectual remedies to a problem that may not exist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd be wary about assuming that disputes over details are disputes about substance.

I'd say if anything the theory is rather more complicated than is made out. For instance - I posted this a while ago - these clouds are undoubtedly the result of man-made pollution.

[no name 1]

Study this more, find out what the truth is before we start implementing expensive and possibly ineffectual remedies to a problem that may not exist.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Hmmm.... what does this suggest:

That its perfectly fine and responsible to "hop into our Humvees and barrel around town"?

That its ok to massively deforest large swathes of land?

That its ok to continue with intensive farming practices which cause desertification?

It suggests that it might be wise to excersize caution before making sweeping policy changes that may cause far more harm than potential benefits.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You mean like Californias air pollution controls stifling local industry? Its not like they have a pollution problem there or anything...

[mawilson 2,133]

You mean like Californias air pollution controls stifling local industry? Its not like they have a pollution problem there or anything...

Pollution is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You mean like Californias air pollution controls stifling local industry? Its not like they have a pollution problem there or anything...

Pollution is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I don't see it that way. You mentioned in the other thread about climate scientists limited 'concrete' knowledge about planetary ecology. Pollution can, does and has raise temperatures over large areas. It's part of the picture however you slice it.

[GaryC 7]

Pollution is different from CO2. I am all for stopping pollution. CO2 on the other hand is a naturally occurring substance. Everything that breaths makes CO2. Volcanoes and forests make much more CO2 than man does. There is no scientific connection to the additional CO2 that industrial man makes to the warming of the planet. It's just a theory and conjecture.

[GaryC 7]

Study this more, find out what the truth is before we start implementing expensive and possibly ineffectual remedies to a problem that may not exist.

Sorry, I will use small words so you can understand also. There may or may not be a problem. The solution to that supposed problem may not work even if there is a problem. For instance, planting trees to absorb CO2 has just been found to have no effect.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pollution is different from CO2. I am all for stopping pollution. CO2 on the other hand is a naturally occurring substance. Everything that breaths makes CO2. Volcanoes and forests make much more CO2 than man does. There is no scientific connection to the additional CO2 that industrial man makes to the warming of the planet. It's just a theory and conjecture.

Did we forget about ozone depletion somewhere?

[GaryC 7]

Pollution is different from CO2. I am all for stopping pollution. CO2 on the other hand is a naturally occurring substance. Everything that breaths makes CO2. Volcanoes and forests make much more CO2 than man does. There is no scientific connection to the additional CO2 that industrial man makes to the warming of the planet. It's just a theory and conjecture.

Did we forget about ozone depletion somewhere?

No, that is something else all together. CFC's are not CO2.