NASA doesn't QA the datasets on which global warming fears are based!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

...

GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs ... GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

...

Last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml

[Ban Hammer 14,594]

ooops. don't tell steven.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I just realized I typed 'QA' in the title when I meant 'QC'. My bad

[Pooky 3,929]

Anyone for a used Global Warming Consensus? Evidence is a little shaky, but it sounds nice.

[Ban Hammer 14,594]

I just realized I typed 'QA' in the title when I meant 'QC'. My bad

i figured it was quality assurance vice quality control

[dalegg 143]

I thought is was question and answers- nobody is allowed to question because they don't like the answers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mountains and molehills

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA's collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).

(more…)

http://www.realclimate.org/

Edited November 17, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Mountains and molehills

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA's collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).

(more…)

http://www.realclimate.org/

Which is exactly what the article says

What the article further goes on to point out is that GISS says it doesn't have the resources to properly QC the data.

Really????

So all the data we've seen so far has only been QC'd by Interwebz bloggers and no one else?

NASA wants to sell us this global warming theory and it admits it doesn't bother funding a QC effort to make sure its data feeds are good?

Really???

[Pooky 3,929]

Mountains and molehills

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA's collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA (Update: now (partially) completed).

(more…)

http://www.realclimate.org/

Which is exactly what the article says

What the article further goes on to point out is that GISS says it doesn't have the resources to properly QC the data.

Really????

So all the data we've seen so far has only been QC'd by Interwebz bloggers and no one else?

NASA wants to sell us this global warming theory and it admits it doesn't bother funding a QC effort to make sure its data feeds are good?

Really???

So it's just the October readings that are erroneous? Really.

When data like this is shown to be swiss cheese (full of holes) a properly run scientific exercise is most likely to junk the data and start again. Correcting and compensating for bad data is what screws things like medical trials and ends up killing people.

When there is an admission that there are insufficient resources to Quality Control/Audit the data, a scientific exercise gets shut down, because none of the data can be counted as reliable.

But evidently there is too much (but not quite enough) money tied up in this theory to let a small matter of unreliable data stop its proponents.

[NickD 203]

Either Gore has a screw loosed or is trying to pull something, haven't figured that out yet.

When leaded gas was found to be a major health hazard, it took twenty years to phase it out, still selling the stuff for people that couldn't afford to buy new cars, and cars were dirt cheap then compared to today. Based on a theory loosely proven by putting CFC's or R-12 in a test tube and exposing it to UV radiation, the chlorine did combine with O3 breaking it down and CFC's were banned in a day. But the ozone layer is not in a sealed test tube. If any R-12 got up there, would break down, become heavier, and new oxygen moleclues would go up forming O3. According to Gore, this world should be loaded with CFC's, but none was found. But CFC's were banned.

Government was using over 60% of it cleaning, it was a regulation and pouring tons of it in the ocean to check for water currents, with another 35% of it used for spray cans, less than 5% of it was used for refrigeration and air conditioning. Could still buy it, had to be certified, but the price went up by 80 times. This really affected the poor. And major AC and vehicle manufactures had a mad rush to switch over to R-134a that just happened to be invented by DuPont. All this was done without an ounce of proof. And by the way, R-134a supposingly safe does not break down like CFC's, uses very dangerous chemicals once outlawed by the EPA for manufacture, plus has over a thousand times the global warming potential as CO2.

Ironically this got kicked off when NASA put a sattelite over the south pole to discover the ozone hole. Of course there is an ozone hole in the dark winter months, also need UV radiation from the sun to create it. But it was the size of the hole that concerned them, years later NASA said the leading cause of the size of this hole is wind patterns. It's all BS, but still today, the price of a can of R-12 is outrageous and the usage today is about 0.1% as it was 14 years ago. We are getting screwed by junk science.

Has been a constant global warming due to sun spot activity since the 15th century, if this reverses, over two billion people will lose their lives and perhaps a lot more due to the wars it will cause, the earth can't support them. While Gore says the heat of the sun will evaporate the lands, he did not consider this puts moisture in the air that blocks the suns rays, causing a cooling effect, that guy is nuts, but yet many believe him. It's crazy.

But I do go along with the green movement, not because of global warming, but because of our economy and the huge amounts of money we are exporting for oil when there are other means, like a 4,000 year known domestic supply of natural gas and another 4000 supply of methane. We have what we need right here if we shut down the EPA so we can use it. Bush did say no to the Kyoto conference that wants to tax carbon producers, but mostly because he is an oil man and likes that middle east oil.

Bottom line is that we have idiots on both sides of the fence or crooks.

[alienlovechild 75]

Bush did say no to the Kyoto conference that wants to tax carbon producers, but mostly because he is an oil man and likes that middle east oil.

Or it could be that it would cost the U.S. trillions to meet the compliance standards under Kyoyo designed for European standards of compact cities. There was little support for Kyoto in the Senate anyway once they figured out the total bill and that China and India would be exempt.

I haven't heard that Obama will sign on to something like Kyoto in the future but he probably will to win more support from the wolrd community.

[Amby 490]

I'll start selling tickets to the island soon

[NickD 203]

Bush did say no to the Kyoto conference that wants to tax carbon producers, but mostly because he is an oil man and likes that middle east oil.

Or it could be that it would cost the U.S. trillions to meet the compliance standards under Kyoyo designed for European standards of compact cities. There was little support for Kyoto in the Senate anyway once they figured out the total bill and that China and India would be exempt.

I haven't heard that Obama will sign on to something like Kyoto in the future but he probably will to win more support from the wolrd community.

That's the key problem world is run by politicians instead of science or even common sense.

If the politicians cracked open a history book, would quickly learn that this country got that way by an isolationism attitude and very strict trade policies. But unfortunately that all changed during the outbreak of WWII. Much of our commercialized industries converted to military contractors, hey, you get paid whether he system works or not, and government bailouts aren't exactly new, been doing that for years, even if required starting a war in VN to keep these guys in business.

Can only imagine where this country would be today if our current leaders were in charge during the formation of this nation, but won't have to wonder long, because we are rapidly headed in that direction.

Sure we had a major depression, that was because Wall Street was ran with IOU's instead of cold hard cash, that was changed, but we went right back to it with idiot leadership.

Today, a guy cannot even drop a smaller engine in a vehicle without getting into deep trouble with the EPA, have a lot of government regulation yet where we don't need it, but none where it really is needed.

[NickD 203]

Ha, can you think of a politician you would hire to sell your home or vehicle? They will get rid of it for you, but you will owe money besides.

[one...two...tree 2,762]