Researcher discovers Y2K bug in GW data, NASA issues large corr. xpost

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Many != all
2. Weather satellites collect temperature data globally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a weather satellite can measure the temperature 22,000 below their orbit with enough accuracy to be used for global warming data. Infra-red, though useful, has its limitations. If so, then we can close all temperature stations around the world and just use satellite data. But there must be a reason to keep these weather stations open instead of relying on satellite data which would be MUCH easier. I didn't see anything from wiki to confirm or deny this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">that claim was never made. The claim was that a 20 year temperature "trend" is meaningless in "climatological time" and cited the length of previous heating and cooling periods.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[ QUOTE ]
In the medieval warming period, Greenland was green. The Vikings could grow crops and had plentiful grass to feed their animals. If we had thermometers during that time, the 1934 temp record would have been smashed....EASILY.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like "Greenland was warmer implies global temperature was higher" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how does "the temperature was higher in Greenland during a prior warming period" (which is the full restatement) translate to "we aren't in a warming period now"?. Hint: It doesnt.

Again, no one is disputing that we may be in a warming period. The revised data may indicate the warming period is less severe than previously claimed. What is being pointed out is that there have ALWAYS been warming and cooling periods.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Many != all
2. Weather satellites collect temperature data globally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a weather satellite can measure the temperature 22,000 below their orbit with enough accuracy to be used for global warming data. Infra-red, though useful, has its limitations. If so, then we can close all temperature stations around the world and just use satellite data. But there must be a reason to keep these weather stations open instead of relying on satellite data which would be MUCH easier. I didn't see anything from wiki to confirm or deny this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite

[/ QUOTE ]

From the link you posted

[ QUOTE ]
The thermal or infrared images recorded by sensors called scanning radiometers enable a trained analyst to determine cloud heights and types, to calculate land and surface water temperatures, and to locate ocean surface features. These infrared pictures depict ocean eddies or vortices and map currents such as the Gulf Stream which are valuable to the shipping industry. Fishermen and farmers are interested in knowing land and water temperatures to protect their crops against frost or increase their catch from the sea. Even El Niño phenomena can be spotted. Using color-digitized techniques, the gray shaded thermal images can be converted to color for easier identification of desired information.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
but, my take is that it was a software error (udisputable mathematical problem) that he fixed and proved, that a lot of global warming people base their premise on. yay or nay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nay. It was not a software problem. He did not fix it. He only spotted an anomaly in one dataset of many.

x-posting from OOT:

I'm gone for 72 hours and mainstream science disappears from 2p2? Sheesh. I actually thought about posting a preemptive strike on this topic before heading over to womans house but I figured there were enough rebuttals on the web already. People, you need to learn how to Google!!!!!!

Here is a nice quote from James Hansen in 2001:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis

on page 8 of this paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...nsen_etal.html

In 2001 Hansen said 1934 was warmer than 1998 and he says it now. Although the Met-Office gives the crown to 1998. Either way the temps of Met-Office vs. NASA are so close it's within the margin of error. This bug sure as hell wasn't a Y2K problem. How did this "bug" change the global temp ratings? It didn't. Was this a software bug at all? No. Might write more later but there are literally dozens of rebuttals to this on the web.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Where is the Beef?
No where in the article does it specify the accuracy of measuring the surface temperature on an object 22,000 miles away. My point is weather satellites can NOT read temperatures with enough accuracy that would be necessary to determine whether the earth is warmer or cooling. Temp data for this purpose must be VERY accurate. A +/- 0.5 degree error on a weather satellite would be enough to invalidate the readings and the research it was based upon.....hence the need for weather stations on the surface.....Not 22,000 miles away in orbit.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
One underlying issue is why NASA won't release the source code for their adjustments to the temperature series. Not sure about this, but I also think they do not release the raw data itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a FOIA request.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure about this, but I also think they do not release the raw data itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to know where this rumor got started.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to know where this rumor got started.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are not disputing that the adjustment algorithms are not released?

Edit: I was mistaken about the raw data not being available. It's hard to keep track of which climate study hides what data/algorithm.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to know where this rumor got started.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are not disputing that the adjustment algorithms are not released?

Edit: I was mistaken about the raw data not being available. It's hard to keep track of which climate study hides what data/algorithm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you name a few studies that hide their data or algorithms? Please cite your information.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to know where this rumor got started.

[/ QUOTE ]
As you wish...... Steve McIntyre strikes again exposing man-causes-global-warming frauds.....


'Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the "corrected" data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data..'
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

NASA is doing a 'Michael Mann'. In other words, don't release all your algoythms to make it harder for others to expose your work as fraudulent.... If man caused global warming is such a slam-dunk, then why can't these people act like REAL scientists and include FULL methodology sections in their research so their conclusions can be independently verified? Geez....if I turned in a biological lab report with an incomplete methodology section I would have gotten a 'B' instead of my normal 'A'. REAL SCIENTISTS follow the scientific method and include FULL methodology sections with their research.