Re: [asa] NASA quickly changes climate history data.

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Fri Aug 10 2007 - 00:46:25 EDT

At 12:34 AM 8/10/2007, PvM wrote:
>I assume that people understand that these
>temperature records, limited to the 48 US states
>hardly impact the world wide findings supporting
>global warming? Does Janice understand this ? ~ Pim

@ Of course.

 From my first post tonight:
GISS Has Reranked US Temperature Anomalies
Filed under:
Change Metrics Roger Pielke Sr. @ 4:42 pm 08/08/2007
Comment #38
    * The ranking of 1934 as the hottest year is
fairly consistent with the analysis I did [and
about which you dedicated a post on this site].
As of 2006, the state record temperatures count
for 1934 was 25 versus 29 in 1936… compared with
19 in 1998.

    * I suspect that with further analysis, there
will be little doubt that the 1930s were the
hottest decade on record for the U.S. That may
not necessarily follow for the rest of the world,
but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some correlation.

    * Comment by
<>Bruce Hall August 9, 2007 @ 3:09 pm

 From my second post tonight:

Breaking News: Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards Today

"...There are a number of things we need to remember:
    * This is not the end but the beginning of
the total reexamination that needs to occur of
the USHCN and GISS data bases. The poor
correction for site location and urbanization are
still huge issues that bias recent numbers
upwards. The GISS also has issues with how it
aggregates multiple stations, apparently
known good stations with bad stations a process
that by no means eliminates biases. As a first
step, we must demand that NOAA and GISS release
their methodology and computer algorithms to the
general public for detailed scrutiny by other scientists.
    * The GISS today makes it clear that these
adjustments only affect US data and do not change
any of their conclusions about worldwide
data. But consider this: For all of its faults,
the US has the most robust historical climate
network in the world. If we have these problems,
what would we find in the data from, say,
China? And the US and parts of Europe are the
only major parts of the world that actually have
100 years of data at rural locations. No one was
measuring temperature reliably in rural China or
Paraguay or the Congo in 1900. That means much
of the world is relying on urban temperature
measurement points that have substantial biases from urban heat.
    * All of these necessary revisions to surface
temperatures will likely not make warming trends
go away completely. What it may do is bring the
warming down to match the much lower satellite
measured warming numbers we have, and will make
current warming look more like past natural
warming trends (e.g. early in this century)
rather than a catastrophe created by man. In my
global warming book, I argue that future man-made
warming probably will exist, but will be more
like a half to one degree over the coming decades
than the media-hyped numbers that are ten times higher.

So how is this possible? How can the global
warming numbers used in critical policy decisions
and scientific models be so wrong with so basic
of an error? And how can this error have gone
undetected for the better part of a decade? The
answer to the latter question is because the
global warming and climate community resist
scrutiny. This weeks Newsweek article and
statements by Algore are basically aimed at
suppressing any scientific criticism or challenge
to global warming research. That is why NASA can
keep its temperature algorithms secret, with no
outside complaint, something that would cause
howls of protest in any other area of scientific inquiry. ..."


~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 10 00:46:40 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 10 2007 - 00:46:40 EDT