Blogger Finds Bug in NASA Global Warming Study? 755
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.
Re:War of words. (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I've seen the weather's fine, and if it is getting warmer I find it hard to believe it could possibly be our fault, I don't think we're anywhere near that advanced.
Well done... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Very biased article (Score:5, Interesting)
they dont have a clue (Score:3, Interesting)
2007 will be a bad year for hurricanes... hasnt happened
yet they are predicting thet the effects of global warming will start to take effect in 2009?
once they start getting the local weather 2 days out correct on a consistant basis THEN I will start to believe their long term forcasts
Re:oh lord (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hume's Maxim (Score:0, Interesting)
notice it comes from nasa? How about read first, comment later, huh?
Personally, I think climate change is real, quite real, unmistakably so, but not to the man-made extent that they want us to completely alter our economies, that to me looks like the more serious political agenda. I think we need to reduce air pollution for obvious health reasons, and we need to develop alternative transportation fuels and means of electrical production to get away from the asshole ripoff price gouging energy cartels (yes, even the holy nuclear power energy assholes, they price gouge as well), but as to the climate change, it's way more the sun and other cycles right now. The cyclical nature appears to be much higher than these academic goofballs want to admit,. and YES, the scare mongers have an agenda, two of them, and it is easy to see, like in the news biz, if it bleeds it leads. Sensationalism sells. Scary predictions lead to more cash grants to keep studying it, and there is a real political faction inside the "scientific community" that seeks to use man made global climate change theory to push for a global government system and NEW FUCKING TAXES. The goofball paid off scientists on the far right want to keep exxon rolling in the dough and keep their military adventures going-lot of money in weapons research, who cares about slow brown folks anyway, that's their viewpoint, and, the goofball scientists on the far left want some sort of weird global socialist system with "carbon credits" and new taxes and so forth and a lot more layers of bureaucracy. I say bah and a hearty double fuck you to both those extreme points of view, and say kudos to the guy who found the y2k data bug that should have been fixed years ago. Garbage in-garbage out! Now I am wondering how many other climate models have been run using those erroneous figures and data sets? How about that huge UN study?
Nope, this story has legs. It's OK to be skeptical, but these are some simple facts, the bug appears to be real, and nasa are some serious jerks for having closed source software in the first place. Anything being done with tax money needs to be open source, or we get problems, blackbox voting software to skewed climate data. Open it up! Stop the coverups, whether the coverups are malicious or just to keep from getting embarrassed over shoddy work.
What is up with Slashdot (Score:1, Interesting)
This changes data only for the contiguous 48 , not global temperature. It is irrelevant to global temp and irrelevant as a measure of the validity of global climate change.
Here are the facts: increasing CO2 in that atmosphere increases the temperature. That is a fact. CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing and isotopic analysis of the carbon in that CO2 proves that it is from the combustion of organic Carbon. THAT MEANS US!!!!!!
Debate over.
Anything else is trying to quantify the effects or a disinformation campaign.
Slashdots insistence on publishing this kind of article makes me question what other dogma they are trying to push down my throat...
Re:Global warming doesn't only cause rises (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:War of words. (Score:3, Interesting)
The mild winters are not out of the ordinary, Just wait for when we get slammed in a couple of years, then we will have all the global cooling nuts coming out of the woodwork.
Orson Scott Card: Laugh at Gore, Please (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Very biased article (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with him completely. There is no questioning of global warming. It's now a fact. The sun revolves around the earth. To suggest otherwise means you're an idiot.
Let's ignore that CO2 is not the largest part of our atmosphere, and something else (say methane) may be responsible. Let's ignore the fact we're coming off an ice age. Let's the history of "science facts" that the media has trumpeted in the last 40 years or so (remember when we would all die in a massive world-wide starvation as foretold in "The Population Bomb"?, the new ice age they said would come in the by the 80s? The mass extinction caused by DDT?) Let's ignore the fact that Mars is getting hotter too and that it seems to be the Sun's fault. How about that acid rain that would become a blight on the planet making it impossible to go outside while it was raining in the US? And where are those empty south american countries that lost so many trees the planet can't produce enough oxygen to supply all the people in the world.
Is the globe getting warmer? Seems like it. Is it the fault of humans? I wonder. Is it the fault of CO2? I wonder. I don't care if you want to reduce pollution and emissions and such. When I moved to my current location 9 years ago or so, the sky was clear. We now have plenty of smog. Asthma is going up in the US. There are plenty of reasons to do these kind of things. But no one talks about that any more. If we want to cut car exhaust, it's to stop the planet from warming, not so the air isn't brown. If we want to reduce power plant emissions it is to reduce the warming of the globe, not because the plant has been putting a fine layer of soot on everything downwind.
Global warming is the latest media boogeyman. I'm just sick of hearing about it. I'm sick of how it's the US's fault. China pollutes more than us now. Go bug them. Go help them stop burning so many coal blocks for heat. Go help them make cleaner cars affordable. Go help India. Go help Europe (which is getting close to our levels). Fight the BIG sources (that will only grow bigger). When a dam is leaking, you plug the BIG leak that will soon be letting out 20,000 gallons a minute, not 5 little holes that let a few gallons through per day.
I'm sick of this global warming stuff, and how I've basically never seen it questioned in the mass media (except by other people who question it and immediately get called morons for questioning).
Global warming, as it is discussed in the US, seems more like a religion than anything else to me at this point.
Can you give me a good reason why the number from a government scientist who's report was used to "prove" global warming and then later complained he was censored for his actions being disproved shouldn't be reported just as big as the original story?
Remember kids. Call the president a child molester, that's page one. Print the retraction (if at all), that's page 37b in tiny type 6 months later between an ad for Hardee's and Mission Impossible 12.
Re:What is up with Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
I love you global warming crazies! "Oh no! Data that might contradict what were saying... Uh, the US doesn't count towards global warming anymore!"
Just like you ignore the fact that antarctica has not seen warming.
Now, sure, its a scientific fact that a gas with a higher concentration of CO2 has a higher capacity to hold heat. And, given that the sun is adding heat continually, higher CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. My point is, and this is a question no one can answer, but my point is "How much?". And when you have faulty algorithms generating faulty data which say "the temp has gone up 2 degrees in 10 years" when really its only up
Now if you are off by a factor of 10... do your doomsday scenarios still happen? Probably not. Therefore, it is completely valid to question all of your methodologies in coming up with the amount of warming we'll see, and it is completely invalid and stupid of you to just "disregard" the US because its not "the world". Are the European scientists that are doing the same thing as NASA completely infallible? Is it possible that they may have made a similar mistake? Is it possible that in Europe (where the political climate is much more pro-global warming than in the US) that the scientists are even more bent than these NASA guys apparently are? Sure it is! So why should I trust them?! I shouldn't! No one should!
an error this large should have been obvious. When I write code, and run data through it, I can normally spot things like graphs with complete disconnects, jumps, or dislocations, and when I see those things I always go run a check and look at the raw data to ensure it is a valid result. These scientists I believe willfully ignored what should have been an obvious error to get headlines and funding. They have the raw data, they have their processed data, and the huge jump on these graphs at 2000 should have sent them looking at their code first, not to CNN.
Re:Very biased article (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Look at the BIG PICTURE (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:they dont have a clue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:US vs World (Score:1, Interesting)
Thus, the global data is STILL GARBAGE and can not be used to tell anything.
After reading on this thru quite a few places over the last 24 hours or so, it looks like Global Warming is toast.
Re:they dont have a clue (Score:3, Interesting)
Unexpected El Niño.
That's because it's the second week of August. Remember that 1950, the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record (by accumulated cyclone energy) did not have a named storm form until August 12. The fourth most active year, 2004, had its first named storm on July 31. The number six season, 1955? July 31st again (barring the freak Hurricane Alice during New Year's). 1998, number seven on the list, and the year of Hurricane Mitch (remember Mitch? second highest death count of any Atlantic hurricane?) had its first storm on July 27th.
I am not saying this will or won't be an active season. I'm saying it's too early to call. But it's August 10th, and we're up to three named storms. We're ahead of the averages already.
Re:Hume's Maxim (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bogus weather stations (Score:3, Interesting)
The asphalt, or concrete (or a variety of other things) have thermal retention, which means that heat is retained past sunset and re-radiated. This biases overnight lows.
I suppose it depends on which side of the air conditioner you put the sensor...
Re:Orson Scott Card: Laugh at Gore, Please (Score:1, Interesting)
I should have known Orson Scott Card would weigh in on this subject with such a great analysis.
Re:they dont have a clue (Score:2, Interesting)
Be cool... (Score:4, Interesting)
This tells us that the temperature during the last years are higher - for Stockholm. Other places may have a different figure. It is important to look not only for a single site but for several sites with different geographical influence.
What really is needed is an analysis of the temperature over a much longer timespan than just a few hundred years - and here the ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica are one key. Another is the growth of really old trees where the thickness of the year rings tells a lot of the climate, but unfortunately not everything. A warm dry summer gives a different result than a warm wet summer.
And even if the climate is shifting - it's the polar regions that are seeing the greatest changes.
Mainstream media (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Orson Scott Card: Laugh at Gore, Please (Score:3, Interesting)
I've Never Seen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what I remember having seen in my lifetime from the researchers on the subject.
1970's - Climate Science has advanced in the past few years. It is now possible to make accurate predications based on SCIENTIFIC models. All the predictions of a few years ago are meaningless. A new Ice Age is just around the corner. New York will be under year round Ice by the mid 1980's. It's all caused by Western Technology, mostly America.
1980's - Climate Science has advanced in the past few years. It is now possible to make accurate predications based on SCIENTIFIC models. All the predictions of a few years ago are meaningless. The ice age still comming, it's just delayed. The whole north half of North America and Europe will be frozen by 2000. It's all caused by Western Technology, mostly America.
1990's - Climate Science has advanced in the past few years. It is now possible to make accurate predications based on SCIENTIFIC models. All the predictions of a few years ago are meaningless. There won't be an Ice Age, instead, we are all going to die of heat. The next couple of years will break all records for heat waves. It's all caused by Western Technology, mostly America.
2000's - Climate Science has advanced in the past few years. It is now possible to make accurate predications based on SCIENTIFIC models. All the predictions of a few years ago are meaningless. Global Warming is still the problem, but you won't be able to actually measure the real effects for a couple more years. Sometime in the next 30 years (after the predicter is safely dead!) temperatures will break all records for heat waves. It's all caused by Western Technology, mostly America.
2010 - If the recent past trend continues, we will be hearing more and more about Global Cooling. The introductions, reccomendations and conclusions will continue to be the same. Only the predictions changes.
When it finally becomes obvious that they don't really know more than anybody else, they will trot out a new set of dramatic predictions. Supporters will continue to castigate those who question the latest prophecies of doom, and opponents will continue to reply in the same vein. Meanwhile, the dance of demand for support of new political power structures based on this will continue unabated. Because, for the last 40 years, only the predictions have changed.
For the parent, please consider. You decry those who remind you of past failures for 'mere meterology' while this is glorius 'climatology'. Climatology IS meterology. All that changes is the time frame. If they can't predict the immediate future, how can they have any real basis for believing they can be right about the far future. If you want to dispute that, please give me some facts. References to published data that can be used to corroborate a track record are facts. Models of the future do not cut it They are not facts, only tools. They can be made to say literally anything. The only model that really counts is the Earth. There is really no substitute for a track record of accurate predictions. Do you have any? Those I have seen are all worth less than a flip of the coin for accuracy.
Sorry predictions like 'There will be a storm' don't count. Specificity please.
Re:they dont have a clue (Score:2, Interesting)
This year, the first named storm was Subtropical Storm Andrea on May 9. Even if we limit ourselves to properly tropical systems, it started early with Barry forming on June 1, the first official day of the season.
What could be more interesting is the number of tropical storms by August 10 (today) in the above list.
We've had three named storms so far, although they've been fairly pathetic.
For even more statistics and pretty graphs, we have the NHC's Climatology page [noaa.gov]. There we see that on average, the first Atlantic hurricane does not form until August 14. We also can see that we're only now approaching the statistical bulk of hurricane season.
So, what does this all mean? It means that an armchair meteorologist needs to learn a little about hurricanes before spouting off that "2007 will be a bad year for hurricanes... hasnt[sic] happened". Sometimes bad seasons start early. Sometimes they do not.
And remember, it only takes one bad hurricane to make a season memorable. 1983's season was the least active since 1950, but Hurricane Alicia still did $4 billion (2006 dollars) in damage when it hit Houston. If not for Hurricane Andrew, 1992 would be an utterly forgettable season.
Re:US vs World (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:US vs World (Score:3, Interesting)
I will NOT rule out Global Warming as a possibility- but I want these people flogging it to get MUCH BETTER DATA before they go off like they're doing right now. I'd like to do to them like a teacher would a student that put an answer down, but didn't show their work to get there. If this is all they have, they're not showing their work right- this is "And A Miracle Happens" type proof here.
Re:Hume's Maxim (Score:3, Interesting)
Causality, then, is an even more nebulous concept, so much that I won't even enter it (search for Hume's attack on the whole notion in his epistemological studies to see what I mean, although I must add that I disagree with him). Suffice it to say that what you call "cause and effect" is a concept devised by Aristotle, who identified it as one among four types of causes: formal, effective (the one you adopt), final and material. One of the reasons the Intelligent Design folks and evolutionist biologists don't get along is that the ID'ers adopt final causation, while evolutionists adopt effective causation, and both clash when applied to the same set of facts without the people arguing for one or the other previously acknowledging that they're applying different causative principles. Anyway, interestingly enough you cannot "prove" nor "disprove" any of the four causations, you can only "choose" to use one, other, or more than one of them.
So, only here we have at least three Philosophical "beliefs": first, that "the physical world" (let's avoid the term "nature", since you don't like it) is ordered; second, that the way it's ordered is intrinsically mathematical; and third, that this mathematical order is shaped in the form of effective causality. As things stand, none of them can be proved, only used. Interesting, eh?In a sense yes, although the universe as we experience it is only a small subset of the infinitely bigger set of possible universes. Because here's another thing you also believe, without noticing this to be the case: that for anything to exist as fact, it must have previously been possible, what implies that "possibilities" also exist as a component of reality. More precisely, then, believing that the infinite set of possibilities of which our universe is a single instance exist, this is the same as believing in god. Although only partially, while immanent, not while transcendent, since as stated above this last aspect isn't perceived by atheists.On the contrary. What happens is simply that religions express themselves through myths, not through analytic reasoning. To make a software analogy, a myth is a way to express a highly compacted perceived aspect of reality. You can leave it as is, since it is useful in this form nevertheless, or you can uncompress it by expressing analytically all of its content. Thus, if you go study (good) religious philosophers, both ancient and recent, you'll see all of them, from Medieval Christianity to Hinduism, doing this uncompressing, and saying in much more details what I abridged above.
This article on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] offers some very nice examples. It's worth reading.
Re:Orson Scott Card: Laugh at Gore, Please (Score:3, Interesting)
Particularly, the analysis concerning proxies was very well done. There's a real concern there regarding splicing together different data sets, truncating data and otherwise hiding how analysis was done. This means that there is some concern about how the past looked like, and where we currently are with respect to that. Furthermore, it casts doubt on how the proxies are compared to temperature - if a certain section just happens to correlate nicely, but not others, it's a potential sign of parameter massages.
However, their analysis of solar forcing is very bad. The graphs they claim correlate barely do, their analysis of the low solar forcing models amounts to "Can't be!", and their analysis of solar impact on temperature completely lacks any numbers. It boils down to "sun more active => temperature increases are caused by it". I also find that their use of specific data sets is disingenuous - "hey, we haven't explained this rise here, so everything's bad".
Finally, the economic impact analysis is atrocious. He pretty much just picks everything that could go right, and disregards any potential negative impact. No wonder "do nothing" comes out best.
I'll dig some more through the proxy stuff though. There's some interesting stuff in there.
Re:Hume's Maxim (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, the clearest issue is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's a lot more for a lot longer than has been the case for probably millions of years, and the amount is growing, and it is pretty much agreed by all that this is due to human activity. It is also agreed generally by all that this is a greenhouse gas. The only real question is exactly how does the global system react to a forcing event like that? It seems clear to me that it is likely going to have some reaction; the simplest extrapolation is that it will raise temperatures, but there are of course myriad non-linearities.
However, to dismiss that possibility on the basis of - essentially - a belief that some cabal is creating this debate for the purpose of selling ad time seems absurd on its face.