Y2K bug causes NASA to revise their global warming temperatures...DOWN.

[thatguyoverthere]

Ohhh... so when the NASA data seems to favor the deniers, then suddenly the data (and NASA) itself is reliable! Interesting how that happens... Must be easy to "debate" when you can just pick and choose which information is scientifically accurate whenever it's convenient.

For all of you who suddenly think that NASA is a reliable authority on climate science:

“A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.” – US National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2005:NASA - Global Warming

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Ohhh... so when the NASA data seems to favor the deniers, then suddenly the data (and NASA) itself is reliable! Interesting how that happens... Must be easy to "debate" when you can just pick and choose which information is scientifically accurate whenever it's convenient.

For all of you who suddenly think that NASA is a reliable authority on climate science:

“A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.” – US National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2005:NASA - Global Warming

No no no, you got it all wrong.

When the data that GW fearmongers use is suddenly wrong, the the GW deniers have the ability to say 'see, your data that you've so heavily relied on isn't true at all!'.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Ohhh... so when the NASA data seems to favor the deniers, then suddenly the data (and NASA) itself is reliable! Interesting how that happens... Must be easy to "debate" when you can just pick and choose which information is scientifically accurate whenever it's convenient.

What does this have to do with deniers? The data shows a .3 C change in surface temps. The deniers don't deny the temperature increase. They just don't draw the link to man-made CO2 as being the source considering greenhouse gases are only a fraction of what causes global warming and CO2 is less than 10% of all greenhouse gases and human contributions to that 10% or so is relatively minor compared. They like to look at the bigger picture and see that the earth as well as surrounding planets go through natural cyclical changes and they use the evidence that CO2 has always been such a minor role in warming that it has never had a correlation the temperature of the earth in the past.

They never disagreed with the data, they just interpreted it differently. Although it seems they should start investigating the data...

It's interesting that NASA screws up, the historical temperature data is all mucked up and the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the view of the deniers for this flaw? Why not attack the other side? They were the only ones shoving it down our throats as "evidence."

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What does this have to do with deniers? The data shows a .3 C change in surface temps. The deniers don't deny the temperature increase. They just don't draw the link to man-made CO2 as being the source considering greenhouse gases are only a fraction of what causes global warming and CO2 is less than 10% of all greenhouse gases and human contributions to that 10% or so is relatively minor compared. They like to look at the bigger picture and see that the earth as well as surrounding planets go through natural cyclical changes and they use the evidence that CO2 has always been such a minor role in warming that it has never had a correlation the temperature of the earth in the past.

They never disagreed with the data, they just interpreted it differently. Although it seems they should start investigating the data...

It's interesting that NASA screws up, the historical temperature data is all mucked up and the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the view of the deniers for this flaw? Why not attack the other side? They were the only ones shoving it down our throats as "evidence."

See, there you go again. This very post demonstrates clearly how you like to have it both ways. It makes it very difficult to debate you on this subject when your position is so contradictory and ill-defined.

When you agree with the information, it's correct and you call it data, but when you DON'T agree with the information, it's ' "evidence" ' in quotation marks.

You didn't agree with the flawed data to begin with (before it was found to be flawed) because it didn't fit your viewpoint. You think whoever prepares scientific reports on climate change are just a bunch of politicians. Now that the flawed data has been corrected, you suddenly feel free to cite NASA as an authoritative scientific source and magically NASA's climate data becomes accurate.

It must be great to be able to pick and choose when you want to respect an organizations scientific credibility.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

See, there you go again. This very post demonstrates clearly how you like to have it both ways. It makes it very difficult to debate you on this subject when your position is so contradictory and ill-defined.

When you agree with the information, it's correct and you call it data, but when you DON'T agree with the information, it's ' "evidence" ' in quotation marks.

You didn't agree with the flawed data to begin with (before it was found to be flawed) because it didn't fit your viewpoint. You think whoever prepares scientific reports on climate change are just a bunch of politicians. Now that the flawed data has been corrected, you suddenly feel free to cite NASA as an authoritative scientific source and magically NASA's climate data becomes accurate.

It must be great to be able to pick and choose when you want to respect an organizations scientific credibility.

It's not a matter of agreeing with anything. It's all we have. We're all using the same set of data and we're all assuming it's correct. But, when it's proven to have been wrong to hurt the Al Gore side it sure as hell isn't the global warming sensationalists who want you to know.

And I don't think I ever said anything that says when I don't agree or when I do agree, etc. What I said was the data has been interpreted differently. It is not the non-global warming sensationalists who used the data and threw it in everyone's face as if to prove their point. They were the ones talking about other issues. They never harped on "the hottest years" this or that. Because they don't think it matters considering the earth goes in cyclical cycles and some years the data will jump or drop, etc. The only reason to harp on this data is to attempt to draw sensationalist claims over the "hottest" years being current. A .3C change isn't all that sensational, so they have to present the data in a sensationalist way. The difference isn't the data, it's how it is interpreted.

Your quote was:

Ohhh... so when the NASA data seems to favor the deniers, then suddenly the data (and NASA) itself is reliable! Interesting how that happens... Must be easy to "debate" when you can just pick and choose which information is scientifically accurate whenever it's convenient.

My response I felt was pretty clear. Nobody was really denying this data before it was found out to be false. It's just both sides were interpreting th data differently. You're building a false argument and then attacking it and then claiming I'm the one who wants to have it both ways...

When the data is proven wrong, it is going to being to be pointed out as such by somebody. The fact is they never released a correction on this data. They just updated the site and didn't tell anyone in the scientific community that all of their studies are now flawed and based on false data. All the climate models are wrong. All the inferences used from this data are wrong. All the scientists who were using this data to come to an end result based their studies on false data. And yet they didn't tell anyone this. It wasn't the "global warming deniers" who were shoving this data down everyone's throats as "evidence." They acknowledged the data, but never harped on it because their theories and explanations of climate change didn't rely on it. All they say was that there was a .3C change in climate and then they gave theories as to why. They weren't the ones shoving the individual data down everyone's throats and sensationalizing it. Nor were they the ones inventing wishful theory studies for grant money based on it.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Shit even the data he cites still shows a sharp warming trend starting around 1970. Revising one point slightly downwards changes nothing whatsoever.

Keep grasping at those straws.

It also shows a sharp warming trend from 1880 until 1940, followed by a sharp cooling trend from 1940 until 1975. Does that mean we were causing global warming, then suddenly we caused global cooling for 30 years, and now we're causing warming again?

We're certainly causing some abrupt and drastic changes in the climate!


Or maybe the climate fluctuates naturally.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Ohhh... so when the NASA data seems to favor the deniers, then suddenly the data (and NASA) itself is reliable! Interesting how that happens... Must be easy to "debate" when you can just pick and choose which information is scientifically accurate whenever it's convenient.

For all of you who suddenly think that NASA is a reliable authority on climate science:

“A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.” – US National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2005:NASA - Global Warming

But when NASA says "oh shit, sorry, we made a mistake," they're obviously wrong. They're only right when they support your claim, I guess.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

But when NASA says "oh shit, sorry, we made a mistake," they're obviously wrong. They're only right when they support your claim, I guess.

Care to point out where he disputed their correction to the data?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

Care to point out where he disputed their correction to the data?

Way to miss the point.

If we've been saying all along that NASA's climatological findings were incorrect, then NASA comes out and says "oh damn, sorry, our climatological findings were incorrect" and we agree that their climatological findings were incorrect - which is what we've been saying all along - where's the "pick and choose" that we're being accused of?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Way to miss the point.

If we've been saying all along that NASA's climatological findings were incorrect, then NASA comes out and says "oh damn, sorry, our climatological findings were incorrect" and we agree that their climatological findings were incorrect - which is what we've been saying all along - where's the "pick and choose" that we're being accused of?

First of all, how did you know that the data was incorrect when NASA didn't?

Second of all, a lot of deniers have been insisting on these these threads that they never questioned the data, just the interpretation of that data. When the data changes, the deniers interpretation remains the same, (which might make one think that the data really means nothing to the deniers.)

Thirdly, it seems that experts think that the correction of NASA's data doesn't have any actual real meaning when judging world temperature and warming trends, or should have any material effect on climate policy.

TheStar.com - sciencetech - Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Originally Posted by link

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble
Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."
But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.
Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."
However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."
A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.
This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.
Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.
McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.
"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

NASA Data Goof Fuels Global Warming Skepticism | LiveScience

Originally Posted by link

NASA Data Goof Fuels Global Warming Skepticism

By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 20 August 2007 07:30 am ET


A small tempest is brewing in the blogospheric teapot between climate scientists and global warming skeptics over a recently revealed discrepancy in NASA's U.S. temperature records.
A former mining executive who manages a Web site dedicated to skepticism over global warming was combing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data for U.S. temperature anomalies—or the amount that one year's average temperature departs from the climatological average—when he noticed that the temperatures made an odd jump between 1999 and 2000.
The blogger, Stephen McIntyre, reported the discrepancy to NASA scientists on Aug. 4, and they had corrected the data by the following Tuesday, thanking McIntyre via email for pointing out the error. They updated the data on the NASA GISS Web site with an acknowledgement to McIntyre, who has blogged about the issue on ClimateAudit.org.
The discrepancy occurred because the source of U.S. temperature data was changed between 1999 and 2000. It was thought that the data were matched across the two sources, but there turned out to be a very subtle mismatch between the temperature records.
Mismatched record
To fix the mismatch after McIntyre brought it to light, the NASA scientists took an area where the two records overlapped and adjusted one to match the other.
The adjustments that were made to the data were fairly small—the net effect was to reduce the U.S. temperature anomalies for the period between 2000 and 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius, on average, noted climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA Goddard (who is not directly involved with the temperature analyses) in the climate science blog he co-runs, RealClimate.org.
However, some blogging skeptics now claim that these adjustments cast doubt on the conclusions of warming temperatures, because some of the anomalies were reduced such that certain years might not have been as warm as was originally thought. Numerous comments have been posted on RealClimate and global warming skeptic sites debating the import of the adjustments.
"Do you think we can now be “99% certain” that 1934 was the warmest year in the last 1000 years, or are we still 99% certain that it was 1998. How certain are we of ANYTHING that [climate scientists] say, now?", wrote one poster on RealClimate.
While the reductions changed the absolute numbers of temperature anomalies for certain years, climatologists aren't looking at the values for particular years, Schmidt explained.
"We're only interested in the trends," he said, and the amount of change in the trend of warming U.S. temperatures is larger than the 0.15 degree Celsius adjustment.
Furthermore, Schmidt notes, because the United States makes up a small portion of the Earth's total surface area, the adjustment had little effect on the global temperature data--the key measure when looking for trends in warming temperatures.
"This particular issue didn't change the global mean except to the third decimal place," Schmidt said, as compared to the 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming observed per decade over the globe.
'A very special year'
One result of the adjustment that was widely touted in the blogosphere as a refutation of global warming was the replacement of 1998 as the warmest year on record in the GISS data with 1934. Schmidt says this replacement is largely irrelevant to the global warming discussion because that year was something of an oddity.
"1934 was a very special year," Schmidt said, because it stood alone in the years around it as unusually warm and was only warm in the United States. In contrast, recent years have been steadily warmer all over the globe--and that trend is unlikely to reverse course.
"Unless we have a big volcano [volcanoes spurt aerosols, which have a cooling effect], we're not going to see another cold year for a long time," Schmidt told LiveScience.
Schmidt also noted that with the numerous other lines of evidence that show that global warming is taking place, including melting sea ice, changing migratory patterns among animals and rising sea levels, small adjustments like that made to the GISS U.S. temperature series are insignificant.
"There's not going to be any statistical problem that's going make [global warming] go away," he said.

Here's the guy who caught NASA's error:

Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”?

Originally Posted by link

So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a “significant” impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely “matter” and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS.