Blogger Finds Bug in NASA Global Warming Study?

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at DailyTech, a blogger has discovered a Y2K bug in a NASA climate study by the same writer who accused the Bush administration of trying to censor him on the issue of global warming. The authors have acknowledged the problem and released corrected data. Now the study shows the warmest year on record for the contiguous 48 states as being 1934, not 1998 as previously reported in the media. In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II." The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is interesting to note.

Well, well, well..

[alx5000 (896642)]

The opinion: A link to the blog entry in question [norcalblogs.com] would have been quite on topic.

The pun [youtube.com].

Re:Well, well, well..

[dj_tla (1048764)]

Thanks for the link to the blog article. It's a lot more interesting and substantial than the somewhat embarassing DailyTech article.

A lot of people have been criticizing the DailyTech article for the line "Then again-- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media." It should be noted that the original blog entry [norcalblogs.com] does not contain this or other indications of paranoia, and attributes the people involved in the discovery.

Y2k?

[Major Blud (789630)]

What software were they using that wouldn't be Y2k compliant? Graph generators from the late 70's?

Re:Y2k?

[Jarjarthejedi (996957)]

Dude, it's NASA. They have to test their computers for space-proofness, radiation-proofness, and drunk user-proofness. Obviously those tests take time, 50 years in this case...what? You didn't think those old Analog computers used around the end of WWII were just thrown out right?

US vs World

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

I looked quickly at the numbers. This impacts U.S. air surface temperatures, not global. It almost seems like the U.S. is experiencing a somewhat lesser global warming effect than the rest of the world. Is this possibly due to the post-industrialized economy and tighter environmental regulations? This would mean we are still being impacted by global warming, but it is being countered by less heat-trapping smog and other pollutants?

Orson Scott Card: Laugh at Gore, Please

[WED Fan (911325)]

Orson Scott Card, has been stirring things up [ldsmag.com] recently, and makes some damning statements regarding global warming, saying it is time for scientist to abandon the faked data of the "Church of Global Warming".

It is time for us to laugh at the ideologues who try to pretend that any criticism of Global Warming alarmism is idiotic and unscientific. They are the ones who ignore the data; they are the ones who believe on faith alone, without evidence; and, most important, they are the ones who are trying to stifle the opposition without answering it.
The Global Warming alarmists are the anti-science religion that is trying to forcibly indoctrinate and convert everyone while suppressing dissent. And the news media are their patsies, their stooges, their puppets.

Very biased article

[eln (21727)]

The last couple of paragraphs of the article:

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.

(emphasis mine)

Seriously, this data may be very interesting and correct some of our possible misconceptions about the severity of global warming, but come on. The last part of his blog basically makes him sound like a standard zealot conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind. How does that sort of nonsense advance the debate at all?

Re:Very biased article

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Numbers used in the debate about global warming were never questioned. The person who put together the algorithm never made the workings of the algorithm public (why not?). Yet there was no questioning the numbers.

Someone goes to the trouble of reverse engineering the algorithm, and finds a pretty obvious error. Yet you are picking on one sentence? Sheesh. I'd think you'd be jumping on the closed-sourced original scientist instead.

Re:Very biased article

[Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658)]

Worst than that -- he had to reverse engineer the data, since "Mr. Bush Is Keeping Me Down" would not release the original data .

Re:Very biased article

[cavemanf16 (303184)]

Great point, and I believe that this very problem - closed scientific data and mathematical proof of global warming - has been the key item of contention for the global warming detractors (like me) because it sheds a lot of doubt on the accuracy of what we're being told by pro global warming scientists. Now, granted, I saw a lot of evidence of rather drastic changes to the global environment in Alaska earlier this summer while on vacation, but I don't believe that anyone is capable right now of quantifying and accurately measuring the impacts humans are having on a global scale towards these environmental changes, AND I'm not convinced that this isn't just a meta-cycle that the earth goes through from time to time and not "global warming" due to humanity polluting the earth.

So if I am an open-minded skeptic about global warming that could change his mind given full disclosure of the methods used to determine the proof that "global warming" is all due to humans, then why wouldn't the scientists who support global warming theories just release said data? My theory is that they don't release all of their info because they know it's a shoddy product, just like Microsoft knows not to open-source their OS or parts of it because hackers would find all kinds of flaws with it very quickly.

I'm not against protecting one's information from time to time for one's own profit, but if you're going to attempt to use that closed off info to alter my fundamental rights, my taxes, and my way of life then you had better start getting more open about it or you'll always be fighting with critics and losing.

Re:Very biased article

[mdsolar (1045926)]

The tone of the blog does not match the tone of the reply which is quite polite. I addition, the correction does not change conclusions. The main result appears to be robust. There will continue to be corrections of unintended erors as well as improved methodology. The latest IPCC report appears to underpredict current sea level rise, an error in the opposite direction, if you like to cast this as a political fight. Errata are a well worn mechanism is science and this is what we have here.

I felt a great disturbance in environmentalism

[GammaKitsune (826576)]

As if millions of voices suddenly cried out "oops" and were suddenly silenced.

But what's the consensus

[huckamania (533052)]

Who cares what this data says, don't we already have consensus on this?

9 out of 10 scientists say the hottest decade was the 1990s, how dare anyone suggest otherwise?

Zogby should poll all of the scientists in the world and figure out what is going on.

Cool!

[cigarky (89075)]

Now we can drive bigger cars and oil will never run out! :0

US centric

[ianare (1132971)]

from TFA

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)

Well done...

[StressGuy (472374)]

First off, kudos for actually referencing the claims made, this is a critical and often overlooked step when dealing with such a contraversial issue. It won't stop people from arguing the point mind you, but it does give the less lazy among us an opportunity to at least validate the claims made.

Without a doubt, you've made a compelling case.

Now, allow me to make some suggestions:

Try to avoid statements designed to "stir the pot" such as "quietly released". I know it's a tempting expression to use and just about everyone does it. However, it carries with it the implication of NASA being forced to release the data but not wanting it to be noticed. If that was the case, then make the case, don't just make suggestive statements... Speak Plainly . It will give integrity to your report rather than make you look biased, thus giving ammunition to the opposing side. Remember, NASA is not required to make a fanfare, they just need to correct their data.

Also, your data stands on it's own merits, there is no need for you to make assumptions on how it will be received by the "Global Warming Propaganda Machine" or whomever. Again, it makes you look like your just trying to pick a fight and it diminishes the effectiveness of your report.

Now, I'm only taking the time to write this because I think your presentation is one of the better ones I've seen. It does not "debunk" global warming (particularly the "global" part if I understand the data I've looked at so far), but you make a great case for critical evaluation of the data and peer review of conclusions.

Regardless of who's side you're on, that's all any rationale person should want.

Lies of omission

[Shaterri (253660)]

From the summary and the article:

In fact, the corrected study shows that half of the 10 warmest years on record occurred before World War II.

Mentioned nowhere: the uncorrected version of the study has only, ummm, four of the 10 warmest years on record occurring before WW2. In fact, the net effect of this 'massive' bugfix (aside from a couple of minor changes of position on the list) is to replace the year 2001, in the bottom of the top 10, with the year 1939. Yes, there is a drastic change in 2001's temperature deviation (about 15 percent), and a notable change in 2006's (a bit under 10 percent), but to claim that this somehow puts the lie to the data is an absurd overreach. Can anyone offer an explanation for explicitly mentioning the '5 years before WW2' figure in the new data without mentioning that this is only one year more than previous, that doesn't involve a deliberate effort to spin the results?

Re:Hume's Maxim

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

In other words, some random blogger claiming that climatologists have been using screwed up figures about global warming due to a "year 2000" bug is pretty miraculous. I find it more believable that there's more to the story here than what's being posted. I read some of the logic chopping in the blog post's comments, but I didn't see any climatologists speaking there. Just some random people who seemed like they were playing detective.

I'd like to see some additional corroboration on this.

RTFA. There is a link to NASA posting the new numbers. Need more corroboration?

Re:Hume's Maxim

[kestasjk (933987)]

RTFA. There is a link to NASA posting the new numbers. Need more corroboration?

If I believe in global warming I need to see the bug, presented and explained by the NASA official that made the mistake, and I need to see the data that the algorithms operated on, presented and explained by someone with a doctorate in climatology.
I need to know if anyone that had anything to do with collecting the data, writing the software, writing the article, or writing the summary, was ever on an oil company's payroll, ever owned stock in an oil company, or ever owned a car that wasn't a hybrid.

If I don't believe in global warming the article summary was more than enough corroboration, and is the final proof that global warming is a conspiracy run by Al Gore, the IPCC, the media, and anyone else who uses the words "Global Warming" without saying it in a mocking tone.

Not a very random blogger

[SleptThroughClass (1127287)]

If you didn't find enough info in that article, try the links here [slashdot.org].

It wasn't a random blogger, it was Steve McIntyre, a statistician whose attention was drawn to an oddity in the data for an official temperature station next to some air conditioners.

Re:Hume's Maxim

[ArcherB (796902)]

Some skepticism is needed here.

Um... Isn't that what this article is?

Re:this is good.

[kad77 (805601)]

Um, yeah. Hansen from NASA refused to release the algorithms he used, funded by public money.

The blogger reversed engineered them from the data. Hardly the open scientific process you are ascribing to it.

Also, NASA has very quietly updated the numbers, replacing the old ones without reference. No transparency there.

Try again, pollyanna.

Re:War of words.

[goldspider (445116)]

Anecdotal evidence is hardly an appropriate substitute for reliable, reproducable scientific analysis.

Unless, that is, you've already made up your mind on the subject, in which case anything that supports your view will suffice as "proof".

Re:War of words.

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

Exactly. Scientists shouldn't hold firm to any theories of global climate change until they can *repeatedly* test the impact of human-induced CO2 emissions on *several* copies of the earth.

Re:War of words.

[NiceGeek (126629)]

"but this year has been pretty cool."
Global warming is just that - GLOBAL
You are making the common mistake of confusing weather with climate.