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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Aug 11 2007 - 11:05:00 EDT

Hansen made corrections to station data in his 2001 Science paper. The
"error" was these corrections were not carried forward in the real-
time data streams.. Comments about the last decade of the Twentieth
Century are simply wrong because that data was not corrected since
that was already done in the 2001 Science paper. As for data for the
early Twenty First Century, the error was up to 0.15 degrees C for the
US temperature anomoly and .001 degrees C for the global temperature
anomoly.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> At 01:10 AM 8/10/2007, PvM wrote:
>
>> In fact the changes to the data are remarkably small, the only
>> 'news worthy' aspect is that the hottest year in the US moved to
>> the mid 1930's. Of course, the change was quite minor ~ Pim
>
>
> @ The answers to your questions are in both of my posts already.
> Do you ever stop rowing in circles?
>
> http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
> GISS Has Reranked US Temperature Anomalies
>
> [snip]
>
> Comment #36
> Re:#20, Among other things, the change refutes the claim by AGW
> alarmists that the temperatures at the end of the 20th century were
> the “warmest in a millllllion years!”. In fact, the last decade
> of the 20th century wasn’t even warmer than the 1930s.
>
> Also, as others have said, this was the low hanging fruit. The error
> noted by Steve M. was obvious, its source was obvious, and the fix
> was obvious. The keepers of the data could not argue against it and
> so they caved in and adjusted their data in less than a week.
>
> The fact that one error had such a profound impact on a key piece of
> hype that is used to push the need for drastic action should make
> everybody pause and wonder what the eventual outcome will be of the
> broader issues being looked at by Anthony Watts and his volunteer
> observers.
>
> What happens if there is another tenth of a degree (or more) taken
> out of the dataset by errors and biases uncovered there?
>
> Doesn’t that begin to call into question the whole theory of AGW? If
> the models can account for warming up to the 1950s with natural for
> cings, but not all of the warming since 1980, then what happens if t
> hat chunk of the post-1980s warming is found to be error or measurem
> ent artifacts?
>
> Will the experts admit that the models can account for all warming
> with natural forcings? Then what? The wheels fall off the Algore
> snake-oil-mobile…
> Comment by Bill F August 9, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
>
> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Aug 11 11:14:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 11 2007 - 11:14:53 EDT