Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data

[parmenides3]

The CET has been , for a long time, the jewel in the crown of temperature datasets. And that had to get adjusted, for urbanisation effects, a few years back. Doesn't mean it was wrong the first time, only that some allowance had to be made for the fact that the conditions of measurement had changed. This was done, because it's better science. Just about every other dataset or modern-era temperature reconstruction relies, at some point, on the CET. I believe the Danish and Dutch records are quite good, too. The US dataset's 'pre-eminence' is based purely on size and level of funding, not on accuracy.

You are implying that a change in the US temperature record for 2000-2006, properly done to account for an oversight, somehow invalidates the record of GLOBAL warming over the past 100 years. It doesn't; the effect of the alterations is teeny-weeny-tiny. And it was nothing to do with a 'Y2K bug'; that's just nonsense.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that an important data series has had an adjustment made; this is well and good, and shows that science is transparent and open and scientists are more concerned with truth than reputation. Any suggestion that this is significant with respect to GW is not supprtable by the facts.

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The CET has been , for a long time, the jewel in the crown of temperature datasets. And that had to get adjusted, for urbanisation effects, a few years back. Doesn't mean it was wrong the first time, only that some allowance had to be made for the fact that the conditions of measurement had changed. This was done, because it's better science. Just about every other dataset or modern-era temperature reconstruction relies, at some point, on the CET. I believe the Danish and Dutch records are quite good, too. The US dataset's 'pre-eminence' is based purely on size and level of funding, not on accuracy.

The geography of the US cannot be replicated.

You have a large continent, two coasts on each ocean. North exposed to the arctic, middle temperate, the south a foot in the tropics.

in comparison the UK is a small island with a temperate climate near the north pole. all the sensors are squashed into a small area inland.

if you had to choose between equally good datasets, and you could only have one, which would you choose to get an indication of global conditions?

You are implying that a change in the US temperature record for 2000-2006, properly done to account for an oversight, somehow invalidates the record of GLOBAL warming over the past 100 years. It doesn't; the effect of the alterations is teeny-weeny-tiny. And it was nothing to do with a 'Y2K bug'; that's just nonsense.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that an important data series has had an adjustment made; this is well and good, and shows that science is transparent and open and scientists are more concerned with truth than reputation. Any suggestion that this is significant with respect to GW is not supprtable by the facts.

:)P

Of course it doesn't invalidate global warming - whoever made that claim? Not me. I've posted the US temperature history chart twice now, and it clearly shows periods of warming.

The correction means - 1-2% less global warming - that is minor but not insignificant.

[Devonian]

That's right. Previously US temperature record was the "jewel in the crown" of the global warming dataset. No longer.

That's, simply put, wrong. The US is, what, a few % of the globe? I say no one has said what you claim - and I'd like you to prove me wrong.

Btw, there have been calls for better mutual respect hereabouts. I do think your previous use of the pejorative word 'enviros', erm, unhelpful.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

AF; this is only as I understand it, so I'm happy to be corrected: the main reason that the CET is preferable to the US gridded land dataset is precisely because of the geographical differences. For a while now, it has been generally recognised that there is a reasonable correlation between changes in the CET and changes in global temperature anomalies. This is not absolute, but it means that the CET is a good, simple indicator of likely global conditions. Because the USA is both part of a large continental landmass abutting the Arctic Circle, and partially discontinuous (Alaska, Hawaii), it seems to be more prone to internal variability, so is not such an effective guide to global conditions. That's about as simple as I can get it. (I'd qualify this by saying we're probably dealing with the NH variability, a bit more than the global...

:)P

[PersianPaladin]

Y2K bug?

You do know that the whole 'millenium bug' was just a huge scam in which people made profit out of ignorance?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That's, simply put, wrong. The US is, what, a few % of the globe? I say no one has said what you claim - and I'd like you to prove me wrong.

Btw, there have been calls for better mutual respect hereabouts. I do think your previous use of the pejorative word 'enviros', erm, unhelpful.

If US is "a few %" what is the UK?

AF; this is only as I understand it, so I'm happy to be corrected: the main reason that the CET is preferable to the US gridded land dataset is precisely because of the geographical differences. For a while now, it has been generally recognised that there is a reasonable correlation between changes in the CET and changes in global temperature anomalies. This is not absolute, but it means that the CET is a good, simple indicator of likely global conditions. Because the USA is both part of a large continental landmass abutting the Arctic Circle, and partially discontinuous (Alaska, Hawaii), it seems to be more prone to internal variability, so is not such an effective guide to global conditions. That's about as simple as I can get it. (I'd qualify this by saying we're probably dealing with the NH variability, a bit more than the global...

:)P

48 state record don't include Alaska or Hawaii. so I presume you made that bit up to support your case.

data from continental USA would use 1 thermometer for an area the size of Britain - okay, now I'm making things up. what I mean is, Britain's CET is over analysed, we should get rid of a few stations, perhaps just keep one station to contribute to a "global" grid to track temperature.

Y2K bug?

You do know that the whole 'millenium bug' was just a huge scam in which people made profit out of ignorance?

Then it is ironic that NASA has had to fix a Y2K related bug in its temperature data since it might put in jeopardy sales of carbon credits in the US.

An already skeptical American looking at this chart is not going to get less skeptical

Edited August 12, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[VillagePlank]

Y2K bug?

You do know that the whole 'millenium bug' was just a huge scam in which people made profit out of ignorance?

Actually, PP, it wasn't. All of those people who made a profit (me included) rewrote hundreds of millions of lines of code to prevent the problem occuring. The problem was identified, the problem was fixed, so eventually, there was no problem.

Then it is ironic that NASA has had to fix a Y2K related bug in its temperature data since it might put in jeopardy sales of carbon credits in the US.

It wasn't a Y2K bug issue.

[parmenides3]

For those with an 'open mind', there's an interesting discussion of this on: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

Does this help?

:)P

[The PIT]

LOL dodgy data. Don't believe it's y2k bug though.

[pottyprof]

Another example on how to fiddle the figures to make things fit. Call it correction if you want. B)

[The PIT]

Another example on how to fiddle the figures to make things fit. Call it correction if you want. B)

Does make you wonder how good some of this data is though doesn't it.

[parmenides3]

The data is about as good as they can get it. Doesn't mean there aren't sometimes problems. Rarely are these significant. This adjustment makes very little - sorry - no difference to the climate trends of the past hundred years.

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The data is about as good as they can get it. Doesn't mean there aren't sometimes problems. Rarely are these significant. This adjustment makes very little - sorry - no difference to the climate trends of the past hundred years.

:)P

It does make global warming disappear US temperature history - after this change all you are left with is what looks like two cycles of warming with 25 years cooling inbetween.

That there is no evidence of global warming in US temperature record yet there is evidence in the Rest of the World (by which we mean Europe) is significant.

An inconvenient puzzle, if you like.

Edited August 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Stratos Ferric]

That's right. Previously US temperature record was the "jewel in the crown" of the global warming dataset. No longer.

The US data has "never" been the jewel in the crown; the US is not a landmass that has warmed particularly. It might be the jewel in the crown of some US based observers, but so far as I'm aware NO major paper has used US data as a proxy for global values. To do so would be totally flawed.

It does make global warming disappear US temperature history - after this change all you are left with is what looks like two cycles of warming with 25 years cooling inbetween.

That there is no evidence of global warming in US temperature record yet there is evidence in the Rest of the World (by which we mean Europe) is significant.

An inconvenient puzzle, if you like.

It would be hugely inconvenient IF, at the same time as replotting graphs, we could restore the ice margins in Iceland, return upland glaciers in mainland Europe to where they were twenty years ago, shorten the growing season, force warm water species now happily swimming in our offshore waters from whence they came...you make it sound as if the only data set evidencing warming - and that on a continent that hasn't been impacted as noticeably as some others - is this US data. Even after the correction in that data we are still in a run of near record warmth, and the current trend as shown looks sharply upwards to me. If you took a ten year running mean, or longer, in stead of a rather volatile five year plot, it WOULD show record warmth.

[davehsug]

So, when the US figures are adjusted to show that warming hasn't been as great as we are led to believe, they are correct but insignificant. When the Southern hemisphere seems not to be joining in the general warming trend, it's a blip & insignificant also.

Confused :wacko:

Dave

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The US data has "never" been the jewel in the crown; the US is not a landmass that has warmed particularly. It might be the jewel in the crown of some US based observers, but so far as I'm aware NO major paper has used US data as a proxy for global values. To do so would be totally flawed.

It would be hugely inconvenient IF, at the same time as replotting graphs, we could restore the ice margins in Iceland, return upland glaciers in mainland Europe to where they were twenty years ago, shorten the growing season, force warm water species now happily swimming in our offshore waters from whence they came...you make it sound as if the only data set evidencing warming - and that on a continent that hasn't been impacted as noticeably as some others - is this US data. Even after the correction in that data we are still in a run of near record warmth, and the current trend as shown looks sharply upwards to me. If you took a ten year running mean, or longer, in stead of a rather volatile five year plot, it WOULD show record warmth.

1. was there not evidence of warming in the 1930s? Carinthian mentions ice margins retreated at this time.

2. is not the US "dustbowl" evidence of warming in the 1930s? had Al Gore been around back then no doubt there would have been greater interest in the cricket mating season and whatnot.

3. The northern hemisphere has bounced out of a mini-ice age. One might expect the same heat in the 1930s and 1990s to produce warmer temperatures in the 1990s than the 1930s. Why, because the 1930s already melted a lot of the ice before we got to the 1990s. (That said, the US graph does not show a warmer 1990s - perhaps the 1930s warming was greater).

Edited August 13, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[parmenides3]

So, when the US figures are adjusted to show that warming hasn't been as great as we are led to believe, they are correct but insignificant. When the Southern hemisphere seems not to be joining in the general warming trend, it's a blip & insignificant also.

Confused :wacko:

Dave

Dave; read this and decide for yourself: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

:)P

Think about it: Land temps higher than water temps; no surprise. NH, lots of land, SH. lots of water. The answer is in the geography. And there is still an SH trend, it's just not as big as the NH trend. There isn't much to be confused about, when you consider the detail. Hope this helps.

:)P

Edited August 13, 2007 by parmenides3

[VillagePlank]

Think about it: Land temps higher than water temps; no surprise. NH, lots of land, SH. lots of water. The answer is in the geography. And there is still an SH trend, it's just not as big as the NH trend. There isn't much to be confused about, when you consider the detail. Hope this helps.

Hi P3,

Yes, this is a point that most people miss.

Most of the land in the world is north of the equator, which therefore means most of the sea is to the south Unless someone wants to start arguing about ocean/atmosphere coupling latency then I can't see that there is any argument as to why the Southern Hemisphere shows less warming. The ocean, as you say, is cooler than land, and, I think, that as a general rule, this is self-evident.

Edited August 14, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Guest Viking141]

A good appraisal of the argument raging over this can be found here:

ClimateAudit article

[Essan]

As I've said elsewhere, it's sometimes difficult for those who aren't humans to understand that we actually make mistakes and get things wrong unintentionally.

Although why all the fuss over such a small difference for such a small part of the globe I don't know. It's a bit like discussing the rainfall in Britain during July and then arguing over whether Lerwick had 20mm or 21mm ......

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

As I've said elsewhere, it's sometimes difficult for those who aren't humans to understand that we actually make mistakes and get things wrong unintentionally.

Although why all the fuss over such a small difference for such a small part of the globe I don't know. It's a bit like discussing the rainfall in Britain during July and then arguing over whether Lerwick had 20mm or 21mm ......

Who has claimed the mistake was intentional?

Mistakes happen all the time, which is one of the reasons why climate science is not "settled."

[The PIT]

2. is not the US "dustbowl" evidence of warming in the 1930s? had Al Gore been around back then no doubt there would have been greater interest in the cricket mating season and whatnot.

Wasn't that more to do with bad farming practises????

Who has claimed the mistake was intentional?

Mistakes happen all the time, which is one of the reasons why climate science is not "settled."

I'll go for the conspiracy theory. Show Global warming (Us plays the Nice guy no global warming, while Europe plays the bad guy loads of Global warming) Governments can raise the taxes to pay for other things. Thirty years from now they can renew the Ice age theory and increase taxes to fix that.

[Stratos Ferric]

1. was there not evidence of warming in the 1930s? Carinthian mentions ice margins retreated at this time.

2. is not the US "dustbowl" evidence of warming in the 1930s? had Al Gore been around back then no doubt there would have been greater interest in the cricket mating season and whatnot.

3. The northern hemisphere has bounced out of a mini-ice age. One might expect the same heat in the 1930s and 1990s to produce warmer temperatures in the 1990s than the 1930s. Why, because the 1930s already melted a lot of the ice before we got to the 1990s. (That said, the US graph does not show a warmer 1990s - perhaps the 1930s warming was greater).

1: yes, the 30s warmed, but in the UK this was a skewed effect and very seasonal, winter was much less effected (I have covered this in great detail in a thread last winter, or elsewhere on these climate chats). What we have now is in excess of what we had then, and all year around.

2: the dustbowl is, first and foremost, evidence of dryness. It was exacerbated by poor farming techniques, which then introduced more aerosols into the lower atmosphere, which would then have compounded near surface stability.

3: I don't know whether to laugh or cheer at this piece of deduction. It's a bit like suggesting that a kettle takes longer to boil in a cold room than a warm one, which in fact would be the case if the water in the kettle was at ambient temperature. On the other hand, what you then describe, is the very essence of continued warming. IN one sense, the same amount of energy creates more warmth because some of the ice has disappeared (reducing the loss to reflection). Sounds to me like you're arguing for GW there AFF?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Wasn't that more to do with bad farming practises????

Required drought too.

I'll go for the conspiracy theory. Show Global warming (Us plays the Nice guy no global warming, while Europe plays the bad guy loads of Global warming) Governments can raise the taxes to pay for other things. Thirty years from now they can renew the Ice age theory and increase taxes to fix that.

Invoking conspiracy theory to explain the existence of environmental taxes would be be to weild Occam's butterknife; to use the most convoluted explanation when the answer is perfectly obvious.

Politicians and much of the public actually believe in what has been said and further believe our environmental effects can best be controlled through our wallets.

There is though an inadvertant positive feedback effect on our taxes from government funding of environmental groups and "climate change" research. The latter provides justification for its work, which beget more enviro taxes, which beget more research, more taxes ... etc.

1: yes, the 30s warmed, but in the UK this was a skewed effect and very seasonal, winter was much less effected (I have covered this in great detail in a thread last winter, or elsewhere on these climate chats). What we have now is in excess of what we had then, and all year around.

Problem with UK: it's a tiny island. Cannot be directly compared to measurements on a huge continent like the US. It would be to compare Washington's CET on equal basis to that of the US as a whole. since 48 states of US cover larger proportion of the globe if we're looking for global trend it is more likely to be found in 48 state sample than single state sample.

It would make sense even if the heat input was slightly less than in the 1930s that it would have greater environmental effects: sea ice, ecosystems etc. That is because 1930s was closer to the little ice age.

2: the dustbowl is, first and foremost, evidence of dryness. It was exacerbated by poor farming techniques, which then introduced more aerosols into the lower atmosphere, which would then have compounded near surface stability.

You cannot argue with the US temperature chart. 4 years from the 1930s in the top 10 hottest.

3: I don't know whether to laugh or cheer at this piece of deduction. It's a bit like suggesting that a kettle takes longer to boil in a cold room than a warm one, which in fact would be the case if the water in the kettle was at ambient temperature. On the other hand, what you then describe, is the very essence of continued warming. IN one sense, the same amount of energy creates more warmth because some of the ice has disappeared (reducing the loss to reflection). Sounds to me like you're arguing for GW there AFF?

I am saying that the heat input might have been stronger. In the 1930s the ice was thicker, harder to melt, and the species of starfish or whatever, they'd be that much further south. So yes, there is global warming occuring - I've never denied that - just that the US temperature anomaly chart suggests the present warming is cyclical. the "unprecedented observations" are just what happens when you get the second warming cycle in a row without a little ice age cycle inbetween - there is a cumulative effect.

[parmenides3]

I hope that some of you might find this diverting: 'You can't have a dialogue looking in opposite directions': http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/

Opinions and thoughts welcomed, as always.

:)P