If the blip was at 2000, then surely any year before than would be affected in the same way? 1998 and 1934 are both before that - any mathematicians who can explain how that could happen?
This received even less attention, Real Climate's explanantion
quote:
Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.
Explanation of why NASA didn't declare 1934 as the warmest
quote:
The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°
Originally posted by lunarita: Interesting, but I'd like to know more,.
If the blip was at 2000, then surely any year before than would be affected in the same way? 1998 and 1934 are both before that - any mathematicians who can explain how that could happen?
Yes I had considered that. Actually I'm a professional debugger, it's what you do when you program. The Y2K issue was about computers storing dates in a reduced bit space. You can choose when you are a programmer how to store a date and the options open to you are the time resolution and the range that you store them in. Now that does not necessarily mean you store them only upto 2000. In computer terms the date range is entirely your choice. You could store them as 1980 to 2010 for example. What you aim to do is to choose a number that uses the entire number range in the bits you allocate for the date.
Point two is what happens when you go over this range limit. My guess is that it will normally wrap around to the beginning again or simply crash completely. Crashing completely is the norm but again it's all to do with your style of programming and how you trap errors. Add to this the unpredictable nature of bugs that you don't take into account and I'd say it's safe to say there are no hard and fast rules on what will and wont happen.
A discontinuity in data is quite typical for something that gives an error that does not get picked up immediately. An obvious error would be something like it suddenly showing a temp of 10 000 degrees but if the date were wrapping around you would just get the data for the wrong dates, so the point at 1998 might be the 1938 data.
If I'm correct, there's a 01% uncertainty in the calculations. So the peak year this century could be 1934 or 1998 or 2005. Never the less, the trend since 2001 has been upwards. Besides, as far as I can make out, the data readings are for the US only if you search for the blogger.
Without having all the data it's impossible to comment. eg was 1934 a one off hot year ? We know that there were several hot hyears in the 1990s and so far this century.
Or was ot often hot back then - is that why our parents remember long hot summers?
Shows the problem of quoting figures without proper context.
Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.: 1998 was not the warmest year. Typical hey and just as well there are some sharp-eyed debuggers around.
Quote
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Daily Tech Saturday Aug 11, 2007
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. 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.
McKintyre failed to mention the data was for the US only. If you check the links to the data for this blog, it takes you to a NASA data page. On the top if clearly states the data is for the US only.
1934 may have been the hottest year in the US, but not globally, 2005 is.
Still it's pretty sloppy to release data without checking it. People rely on computers too much these days and that's of coarse assuming that it was an actual bug, since the other possibility is far worse. I simply don't know which it is but you have to be careful if you just quote this kind of stuff assuming it is scientific fact. That's what I don't like about the centralist approach to Global warming science. Was it not McKintyre who was the one who exposed their deliberate statistical processing scam using incorrect maths to justify it? I'd say it's a good thing we have critics.
Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.: Still it's pretty sloppy to release data without checking it. People rely on computers too much these days and that's of coarse assuming that it was an actual bug, since the other possibility is far worse. I simply don't know which it is but you have to be careful if you just quote this kind of stuff assuming it is scientific fact. That's what I don't like about the centralist approach to Global warming science. Was it not McKintyre who was the one who exposed their deliberate statistical processing scam using incorrect maths to justify it? I'd say it's a good thing we have critics.
It wasn't a bug. It depends how much statistical error you allow into the system. In other words, how you look at the data...
FOX, and others, pounced on this, saying, McIntyre "forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record". The FOX report goes on to say, "In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II."
What the FOX anchor somehow failed to mention is that these changes are for US data only. For the world as a whole, 2005 is still the hottest year on record, just as NASA has said all along.
See Real Climate for details and discussion. See Media Matters to watch the FOX report. McIntye's blog is here. The data in question, including a US only temperature graph, can be found on NASA's website.
Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.: Still it's pretty sloppy to release data without checking it. People rely on computers too much these days and that's of coarse assuming that it was an actual bug, since the other possibility is far worse. I simply don't know which it is but you have to be careful if you just quote this kind of stuff assuming it is scientific fact. That's what I don't like about the centralist approach to Global warming science. Was it not McKintyre who was the one who exposed their deliberate statistical processing scam using incorrect maths to justify it? I'd say it's a good thing we have critics.
It wasn't a bug. It depends how much statistical error you allow into the system. In other words, how you look at the data...
No, it was the method of processing the data that was mathematically incorrect in that it gave some kind of emphasis to wayward points and suppressed points that followed the trend. In fact the reverse to standard practice where wayward points are sometimes ignored if the probability of them being in error is very high. He tested it with random noise and got a curve out of it and hence proved it was in error. This was not a mistake, this was done on purpose and certainly a strong bit of evidence that the UN are prepared to lie to the public who have no way of assessing the data and rely on trust.
Originally posted by Raver Ron: If I'm correct, there's a 01% uncertainty in the calculations. So the peak year this century could be 1934 or 1998 or 2005. Never the less, the trend since 2001 has been upwards. Besides, as far as I can make out, the data readings are for the US only if you search for the blogger.
This is the folly of GW people. I'm sure you can see it yourself that 5 years or so in the evolution of our planet's climate is no reason to get alarmed. If their hypothesis were correct you would have to look over hundreds of years at the very minimum. It's a huge system and 0.12 % change in it is no way going to show up in 5 years. It would more likely be a very gradual bias, which you are only going to pick out with very accurate measurement over a very long time.
Unfortunately our historical data is in some cases is as good as useless. Historical CO2 plots give you anything from 250 - 550 ppm of CO2. No way are you going to pick up a 0.12% change in one of the parameters with this kind of error. Unfortunately CO2 is difficult to measure and the standard way these days is electronically using an infrared light in a tube. Other ways are far worse in that you use some chemical reagents to measure it. This is why the early figures are so inaccurate.
Originally posted by Raver Ron: From the greenpeace weblog.
quote:
FOX, and others, pounced on this, saying, McIntyre "forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record". The FOX report goes on to say, "In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II."
What the FOX anchor somehow failed to mention is that these changes are for US data only. For the world as a whole, 2005 is still the hottest year on record, just as NASA has said all along.
See Real Climate for details and discussion. See Media Matters to watch the FOX report. McIntye's blog is here. The data in question, including a US only temperature graph, can be found on NASA's website.
I hate that organisation. I was looking at their spiel about the cost of their 'renewable' energy and I spotted a bit lie in that it did not mention wind power was cheap due to a whacking great subsidy called the renewable energy obligation. They are as bad as the UN and really I have no time for their PR stuff.
Originally posted by Raver Ron: If I'm correct, there's a 01% uncertainty in the calculations. So the peak year this century could be 1934 or 1998 or 2005. Never the less, the trend since 2001 has been upwards. Besides, as far as I can make out, the data readings are for the US only if you search for the blogger.
This is the folly of GW people. I'm sure you can see it yourself that 5 years or so in the evolution of our planet's climate is no reason to get alarmed. If their hypothesis were correct you would have to look over hundreds of years at the very minimum. It's a huge system and 0.12 % change in it is no way going to show up in 5 years. It would more likely be a very gradual bias, which you are only going to pick out with very accurate measurement over a very long time.
Unfortunately our historical data is in some cases is as good as useless. Historical CO2 plots give you anything from 250 - 550 ppm of CO2. No way are you going to pick up a 0.12% change in one of the parameters with this kind of error. Unfortunately CO2 is difficult to measure and the standard way these days is electronically using an infrared light in a tube. Other ways are far worse in that you use some chemical reagents to measure it. This is why the early figures are so inaccurate.
Fair point, five years isn't enough, but if you look at the graphs, the trend has been upwards the past 30 years. And if you take the 2005 figure as gospel, it's almost a century of warming with a levelling in the 40s/50s/60s.
But it is the predicted climate change that is worrying phenomena. Assuming the AGW devotees are wrong about rapid change and what we see is a levelling off, maybe a drop, then an increase, but the trend still going up. What is the impact? Will we eventually find our food supplies being affected? Some parts of the earth uninhabitable?
Originally posted by Raver Ron: From the greenpeace weblog.
quote:
FOX, and others, pounced on this, saying, McIntyre "forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record". The FOX report goes on to say, "In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II."
What the FOX anchor somehow failed to mention is that these changes are for US data only. For the world as a whole, 2005 is still the hottest year on record, just as NASA has said all along.
See Real Climate for details and discussion. See Media Matters to watch the FOX report. McIntye's blog is here. The data in question, including a US only temperature graph, can be found on NASA's website.
I hate that organisation. I was looking at their spiel about the cost of their 'renewable' energy and I spotted a bit lie in that it did not mention wind power was cheap due to a whacking great subsidy called the renewable energy obligation. They are as bad as the UN and really I have no time for their PR stuff.
Hate Greenpeace or not, this is what misinformation can do. Now people think that 1934 is the warmest global year, when it is debatable 1934 was the warmest year or not, and it doesn't even apply to global temperatures.
Nearly every skeptic blog has picked up on this and ran with it...
McKintyre failed to mention the data was for the US only. If you check the links to the data for this blog, it takes you to a NASA data page. On the top if clearly states the data is for the US only.
1934 may have been the hottest year in the US, but not globally, 2005 is.
Well do beg my pardon, but how much Global data was there in the first 3/4 of the 20th Century?
The inference of the above is that the data can only be reliable if it reflects readings from all over the world and Weather Sattelites. In that case I would guess that we only have records for about 20 or 30 years.
Hardly the basis for determing draconian environemntal policy or for being overly relevant if being a comparable record.
Its also a double standard as these so called "record temperatures" are always presented as the highest since records began, which is in 1874.
S these record temperatures are only local highs are they, and not the global ones we are being led to believe?
Still it's pretty sloppy to release data without checking it.
Which is exactly what you've done by failing to point out that 2005 is the hottest year on record.
quote:
Well do beg my pardon, but how much Global data was there in the first 3/4 of the 20th Century?
Lots. Thermometers aren't exactly hard to come by. British colonial people in particular made widespread scientific studies while abroad - it kept them busy.
The Earth is warming, and more quickly than at any time in history - this is beyond doubt.
McKintyre failed to mention the data was for the US only. If you check the links to the data for this blog, it takes you to a NASA data page. On the top if clearly states the data is for the US only.
1934 may have been the hottest year in the US, but not globally, 2005 is.
Well do beg my pardon, but how much Global data was there in the first 3/4 of the 20th Century?
The inference of the above is that the data can only be reliable if it reflects readings from all over the world and Weather Sattelites. In that case I would guess that we only have records for about 20 or 30 years.
Hardly the basis for determing draconian environemntal policy or for being overly relevant if being a comparable record.
Its also a double standard as these so called "record temperatures" are always presented as the highest since records began, which is in 1874.
S these record temperatures are only local highs are they, and not the global ones we are being led to believe?
No, this thread is about some data presented.
There was some ambiguity in some data NASA presented. A scientist recalculate and his figure is 1934 is the warmest year of the year. All along, there's was no attempt to emphasize it only applied to the US, or that NASA still sticks to the 2005 figure.
Still it's pretty sloppy to release data without checking it.
Which is exactly what you've done by failing to point out that 2005 is the hottest year on record.
quote:
Well do beg my pardon, but how much Global data was there in the first 3/4 of the 20th Century?
Lots. Thermometers aren't exactly hard to come by. British colonial people in particular made widespread scientific studies while abroad - it kept them busy.
The Earth is warming, and more quickly than at any time in history - this is beyond doubt.
Temperature is easy to measure but even then there are errors in that you get enhanced readings due to microclimates and urbanisation. However I do accept temperature can be measured to within a few percent, even with 19th century technology. The point being though that to model the system properly you also need to measure things like CO2 and this is nothing like as easy to measure as temperature. What bugs me is the level of certainty people place on the UN's computer simulation. I recall there were over 30 different models that they had to choose from, now call me a sceptic but I can hazard a guess why they selected one model over the others. They had the results before they conducted the research!
Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.: Temperature is easy to measure but even then there are errors in that you get enhanced readings due to microclimates and urbanisation. However I do accept temperature can be measured to within a few percent, even with 19th century technology.
There is a difference between certainty and accuracy. You can retroactively account for local effects if it is statistically possible. The other thing is that we are looking for general trends over long periods, so local patterns do not matter. Link.
quote:
The point being though that to model the system properly you also need to measure things like CO2 and this is nothing like as easy to measure as temperature.
Snow and ice trap bubbles of the actual atmosphere when they settle. This is a direct measurement, not an indirect one. The only problem is contamination, which can be spotted by, usually, traces of radioactive elements that have only been released through nuclear testing (and hence shouldn't be found 600 years ago). The CO2 level histories are probably much more accurate than the temp ones, but both are accurate.
quote:
What bugs me is the level of certainty people place on the UN's computer simulation. I recall there were over 30 different models that they had to choose from, now call me a sceptic but I can hazard a guess why they selected one model over the others. They had the results before they conducted the research!
Oh please. They are always very specific about what models they are quoting (usually differing by how much we manage to cut emissions). It is the media that take the worst scenario and run with it, so don't go blaming the scientists - they know what they are doing. What people often fail to realise is that these models are run from about 1920 and 'predict' the trends to the current day. This gives us some degree of confidence in their results given that the do indeed accurately model up to the present day. Similarly, the older models were not far off in their predictions to today.
Lots. Thermometers aren't exactly hard to come by. British colonial people in particular made widespread scientific studies while abroad - it kept them busy.
Maybe, but given the Wars, Civil Wars and just plain unpopulated and unexplored huge areas at the hearts of the Earth Major Continents at that time; most of which was not the British Empire, there would have been nobody there to take these measuremnts on anylike a regular basis and nothing like what would be required today to qualify as an accurate Global record.
