Bombshell? NASA revises recent U.S. temperatures downward after Y2K bug fix Updated

posted at 7:07 pm on August 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Ace and Tigerhawk, we’re all probably better off if I don’t try to summarize it for you and you simply read this amazing post instead. Carefully, please. Including/especially the updates, noting in particular the conclusion of Update #3. Then read this post and see what sort of effort had to be made to expose the flaw here, notwithstanding — or rather, because of — the enormous political and financial investment that’s been staked on these numbers. I’d have noted the staggering irony of the role James Hansen is alleged to have played in it but Ace beat me to it so all credit to him. Remarkable, isn’t it, how we’re assured that this is the most important scientific issue of our time and yet one of the basic calculations from which the evidence is derived has to be reverse engineered from the data in order to check it. Can we at least get some peer review before we build the ark?

Here are the new numbers dating back to 1880. As you can see, there’s still a trend towards warming since the mid 1970s or so; the cooling period before that was, supposedly, the product of industrial sulphate pollutants inadvertently reflecting sunlight in the atmosphere, which cooled the planet. The sulphates have been reduced now and so, the theory goes, the warming has begun again. You’ll find the money data in table form here: 1998, which was once alleged to have been the hottest year in a millennium, is now the second hottest behind … 1934. 2001 used to be the eighth-hottest year on record but now, after the data was recalculated, it’s slipped out of the top ten, replaced by … 1939. To quote Coyote Blog:

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.

Whether that’s true or not, I obviously have no idea. Expect some furious pushback about it from the Goracle’s acolytes very, very soon.

Exit question: Not counting Fox News, how much media attention do you suppose will be paid to this story?

Update (Bryan): “Former NASA guy” hat on for a second, this is a pretty big deal. Money quote from Coyote Blog:

I cannot get over the irony that in the same week Newsweek makes the case that climate science is settled and there is no room for skepticism, skeptics discover a gaping hole and error in the global warming numbers.

The discontinuity in the data should have been a serious red flag for Hansen et al, but what we’re probably seeing here is the effect of personality and agenda on the scientific process. They assumed they were right, and either discounted or didn’t even notice the discontinuity that occurred at 2000. When I say that personality had an effect, here’s what I mean by that. After Hansen became the most famous “silenced” scientist since Galileo and particularly since he was battling Bush, he became a titan to the vast majority of the people I worked with in the earth science field at NASA (an admittedly small slice of that field, but also the top couple of echelons of it at the Goddard Space Flight Center). Questioning him in any way invited hostile stares and could limit a career. When I say that agenda played a role, if you ever manage to get onto the GSFC and find yourself outside any of the couple of earth science buildings, take note of the bumper stickers on most of the cars. They’re faded and pealing and say in big, bold letters “Dean for President.”

That said, there were people within NASA’s earth science groups like Dr. Michael King who said that they found the agenda-driven science frustrating, an in particular the effect that overzealous public affairs officers were having on the way the science was being reported to the press. In one story relayed during a meeting I attended at Goddard in 2005, several of the scientists and visualizers talked about public affairs reporting on some Landsat (iirc it was Landsat) imagery of Mt. Kilimanjaro and its icecap. The satellite photos showed the moutain’s ice cap receeding due to seasonal change; public affairs reported the photos as evidence that global warming was causing the ice cap’s retreat. Public affairs was hyping the stories to the press, which in turn added even more hype. The public has been getting earth science reporting that’s hyped, squared.

Perhaps the deflation that Hansen ought to get due to his basic error on the Y2K bug in his data will spark a broader reevaluation of his work and of the way science is reported via press offices that are conduits of earth science to the public. It’s long over due.

Update (bp): Inconvenient timing.

The next decade will be a hot one, according to scientists unveiling the first 10-year projection of global warming.

The climate projection, published today in the journal Science, suggests that a natural cooling trend in eastern and southern Pacific ocean waters has kept a lid on warming in recent years.

And it will continue to do so, scientists say, but not for long.

The projection spans 2006 to 2015. “At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record,” the researchers say in their report.

Not anymore.

Update: Then again…

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


If their conclusions or data they provided to researchers is wrong and they attempt to hide or prevent investigation into that data and how it was developed and if government money was spent based on conclusions from that data, then they would be guilty of a coveruo, It would not surprise me if Hansen’s public outcry against the administration was simply setting the stage to make sure the government COULDN’T investigate him without making it look like a political hit. But what we are looking at here is data that was wrong, other people seeing that it was wrong, refusing to come forth with either the original input data or the process used on them, going back and changing the data, again, without a clear explanation of why, and STILL refusing to share either the input data or the methods.

I believe it is within the power of the President of the United States to compel NASA to release that data and the process used on it. He can simply order them to do it and I believe he should.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 3:39 AM

I believe it is within the power of the President of the United States to compel NASA to release that data and the process used on it. He can simply order them to do it and I believe he should.

Any citizen should be able to get the data.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 3:45 AM

I agree, Christoph but apparently they can’t, so I don’t think it would be beyond reason for the President to order it so. Make the data and software publicly accessible by executive order. There’s nothing NASA could do about an order from the top.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:10 AM

Why not FOI request? Why doesn’t Hot Air do it?

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 4:14 AM

I believe he has tried FOI and been refused. Besides, he is Canadian. That makes things more difficult for Steve. But I believe others here in the US have gone through the process. I know he has issued FOI requests to several agencies at various times and been refused each time. Generally with some lame excuse like “the weather data is archived someplace” and what he wants is the software that was used to develop the “adjustments” to the raw data. NASA and other agencies keep saying that the stuff he doesn’t want is already available. It is actually pretty silly but I think after today there are a LOT more eyeballs on the issue.

He has been complaining about this lack of transparency for several years now.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:24 AM

I believe he has tried FOI and been refused. Besides, he is Canadian. That makes things more difficult for Steve.

Well, duh. I’m Canadian. No kidding they wouldn’t release the info to me. I have no right to the info. But carrying on to your other points, which are usually pretty good… if others have tried to get the info… and you don’t seem to indicate any American has tried all that hard, which is why I think Hot Air (good for publicity: “We support science and we want to know how hot the air really is”) or another American ally should get it.

If not, would be nice if Bush makes this priority, but he won’t.

I’m sure he or his key advisers doesn’t even come close to knowing about it at this stage.

Barring successful FOI request… getting it to that stage is key.

Enlist a senior Republican Senator or Congressman to help.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 4:31 AM

Why not FOI request? Why doesn’t Hot Air do it?

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 4:14 AM

Not trying to be a d**k to AP or Bryan here, but this doesn’t really seem to be “their” issue, in that they don’t show a ton of interest (this post not withstanding). I’m frankly too obsessed with it, because I see what it’s about. Call me a tinfoil hatter, but England’s new PM Gordon Brown himself stated that we need a “New World Order” to combat global warming.. something folks like myself have long said was the motivation behind all of this. You needn’t look further than the UN’s obsession with the issue, and what do you think Kyoto was? Global law. Or at least an attempt. “Global Warming” has been their winner, as things like AIDs didn’t do the trick, and even their recent attempts with SARS, Bird Flu, etc. etc. But as I say, Global Warming has been the winner, in that they’ve been pushing it to school children for a decade or so now, to the point where it’s not question and considered “common sense” like basic math to young children.

This truly is a scary movement, but again that’s why I think a bit too obsessed with it.. not that I shouldn’t be, I guess I just mean I am more than most, which leads back to what I was saying about it not being really a “HotAir issue”. I’m not bashing them, it’s their site and they can focus on what they want to focus on, but perhaps this revelation will spark their interest more, and maybe they will get behind a push for a FOI request.

I gave my prediction on even a lack of Fox coverage of this earlier, but I guess I can hope that MM will bring it up on O’Reilly… I see she’s got a post up, but it’s really never seemed like her pet issue either. I guess I can hope Fox mainstreams this, but I’m not confident they will.

RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 4:31 AM

If not, would be nice if Bush makes this priority, but he won’t.

Yeah, those ticks did more than give him Lyme disease, they sucked the juice out of his Malkins.

Enlist a senior Republican Senator or Congressman to help.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 4:31 AM

Oooh, good point! Ihofe will LOVE this!!! Almost forgot about him

RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 4:35 AM

Christoph, go look through his site, he has documented the contortions used over and over. When a different agency cites the data, he tries an FOI request from THAT agency too. You should see some of the things he has done over the years … with Mann, for example, going back to 2001 or 2002, I think. Nope. “Not tried too hard” doesn’t cut it in this case. Go a look at the website and dig through it. I am going to bed and too tire to do it for you right now. It’s all in there, he documents it pretty well. He does have an FOIA category on the site though.

Here’s the link

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:46 AM

Here’s some more, Christoph.


crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:47 AM

Oh, and using GISS Hansen as a search time on his website brings up like 10 pages of search results.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:51 AM

Make that 30 pages of results. But it isn’t just NASA and the GISS net, he has had problems with NOAA and practically everyone else who studies climate. None of them want to give their data. Same with academic papers. In climatology you can be published in Nature without providing ANY supporting data or showing your work. You can’t do that in any other area of physics. But for some reason you get away with it in climate research IF your conclusion supports warming. If you conclusion supports anything else, forget it.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 4:55 AM

crosspatch, we’re on the same side here. More importantly, you win.

He tried very hard and, to my surprise, he has “standing” Canadian or no.


Can we try to defeat Iran by overloading their budget with FOIA requests?


Yeah, we need the records and it’s BS that NASA isn’t giving them. Bryan should cover this.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 5:08 AM

There is not a day, a week, a month, a year, a century in all of recorded or pre-recorded history, and eons before that, when the earth’s climate has not changed. That’s all – almost by definition – it ever does and can ever do. The entire “global warming” hoax is a mentally disturbed affront to human intelligence and common sense.

Halley on August 10, 2007 at 5:42 AM

Halley on August 10, 2007 at 5:42 AM

I agree completely.

Of all of the places that I would expect to focus on science rather than falling for the hoax, it would be our institutions of higer education. I am ashamed that the administration at my alma mater, Duke University, has bought the hoax hook, line, and sinker.

ITookTheRedPill on August 10, 2007 at 7:36 AM

Make that “higher” education…


ITookTheRedPill on August 10, 2007 at 7:37 AM

This guy loves to tout the great work of NASA (no sarcasm) along with the horrors of global warming that the ‘Bush regime’ won’t acknowledge (much sarcasm).

So please wake me when he posts this news.


guitarguy on August 10, 2007 at 8:42 AM

GIGO…still hold true.

right2bright on August 10, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Allahpundit, Are you really accusing those scientists of bias?
They are the elite of NASA, the elite technology group in the country.
They are the product of the most elite universities in the country.
They learned under the wings of the most elite professors in the country.

Next you will be telling me that Al Gore is an agenda driven politician, not a scientist.

(In the voice of Senator Byrd)
You must be wrong, wrong I say.

(Back to a less annoying voice)
Facts are good, I have faith in facts. But Algore is a leftie, he only believes in motives so we need to expose the motives not just the facts.

TunaTalon on August 10, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Bombshell? NASA revises recent U.S. temperatures downward after Y2K bug fix

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature…

elgeneralisimo on August 10, 2007 at 10:33 AM

You mean of all the billions spent on Y2K, NASA still wasn’t protected, and it took seven years to figure it out? That’s our government at work for ya.

We all know that we can’t even trust the predictions of a 5-day forecast from our local meterologist, and we’re supposed to believe what these government employees are saying about the next century? HAHAHA! Good joke.

moonsbreath on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Update (bp): Inconvenient timing.

no actually it was very convenient timing. the article you posted didnt have the crux of the argument as this one did..

Natural weather variations have offset the effects of global warming for the past couple of years and will continue to keep temperatures flat through 2008, a study released Thursday said.
But global warming will begin in earnest in 2009, and a couple of the years between 2009 and 2014 will eclipse 1998, the warmest year on record to date, in the heat stakes, British meteorologists said.

the same day they said the numbers were lower a report says… well we didnt consider other weather patterns and they masked the true problem. Ofcourse they say right after the presidential election it will start to show more effect.

no its not inconvenient.

CaptainObvious on August 10, 2007 at 11:00 AM

You mean of all the billions spent on Y2K, NASA still wasn’t protected, and it took seven years to figure it out? That’s our government at work for ya.

moonsbreath on August 10, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Nope, it didn’t take 7 years to figure it out… It took virtually no time once a skeptic reverse engineered their methods. Without that, they’d still be lying to us.

BTW, is anyone shocked that Kos and HuffPo have NOTHING on this? But wait, they’re not just power hungry lying scum, they’re interested in the truth, right? Surely they’d want to educate their massive readership, and let them know, at the very least not to panic over global warming because we have PROOF that it was hyped.

RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Watcher on August 9, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Kini on August 9, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy but he is not a scientist. He might be a little bit snookered by all the propaganda, just like many others.

As far as Green Conservatism goes, there are several aspects. There is nothing wrong with reducing pollution and conserving energy. The problems arise when we try to tie our mere human pollution generation in with global climate control.

It sounds scary as hell to think that humans have the ability to completely disrupt long-term global climate trends, but the actual scientific evidence does not support these theories.

Science says that we are at a high point of temperature within normally observed fluctuations. So, yes, the earth is warming right now, but in context of relatively normal long-term global trends. There is no real evidence that our pollution activities are driving up this current temperature spike. There is a lot of coincidence, but coincidence doesn’t prove anything.

Beyond the coincidence all we have is speculation and belief. Unfortunately a lot of people choose to believe in pollution as the cause of global warming, some taking it to the point of religious fervor.

Lawrence on August 10, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Does this mean we’re back to global cooling, again?

Tantor on August 10, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Volunteers are taking pictures and sending in information. There is fascinating and laughable pictures at his websites, one is: Watts Up With That?

You can see pictures of weather stations next to intense heat sources: asphalt, roofs, exhaust fans, etc. and one sinking into a swamp.

INC on August 9, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Thank you very much for posting that! Fascinating stuff!

I always thought its was funny that in all the global warming kerfluffle there seems to be one thing rarely challenged: the most basic temperature data.

Even most skeptics – including me – at least concede that Earth does appear to be in a warming trend, even if the cause is nowhere near as clear as the Goracle pretends.

But, damn … seeing those pictures really made me wonder – after I stopped laughing. If that’s how they’re collecting the data, how do I know any of it is true?

I could not believe that one shot with the temperature station sitting right in the MIDDLE of a parking lot.

Professor Blather on August 10, 2007 at 11:41 AM is under DOS attack. I guess that’s what the left means when it says, “The debate is over.”

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM

That deserves some notice, as well.

desertdweller on August 10, 2007 at 11:44 AM

You watch… my prediction is the the Global Warming alarmists will switch nomenclature. Strike that… will require them to shift to the topic of “CLIMATE CHANGE” and away from Global Warming. Climate Change covers all the bases – cooling and warming and thus avoids the facts. The political agenda is now better served where the US is bad we must have global policies as mandated by Gore and the UN to tax us to death.

Sergei on August 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Well, the meme seems to be now that global warming is on vacation until 2009 according to a link that was on Drudge yesterday. It is starting to get comical. We know what happens around 2009, right? The next solar cycle starts ramping up.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Ya know, the temps wouldn’t be nearly as high if the environuts and politicians kept there whiny mouths shut.

GT on August 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Also, the administrator for Climate Audit isn’t positive if it is a demial of service attack or simply overload from the global attention the site has gotten.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Also, the administrator for Climate Audit isn’t positive if it is a demial of service attack or simply overload from the global attention the site has gotten.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 12:39 PM

This finally showed up on Slashdot, which will definitely overwhelm anybodies small site.

The reaction from a broader audience is interesting. One person didn’t see the problem with having weather stations in parking lots, because “aren’t there parking lots in the world too?” The article that Slashdot linked to had an incorrect statement that understated the impact of the revision. Thanks to the commenters above I been posting corrected information in the slashdot comments, but since the moderators are pretty bad over there it’s not been modded up yet.

pedestrian on August 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

And also to be fair, Steve McIntyre actually noticed this issue earlier in comparing two stations in the Grand Canyon area of Arizona. They were only a few miles apart and one showed flat to cooling since 1989 and one showed pronounced warming that “jumped” starting in January of 2000. This was also brought to light through Anthony Watts’ survey efforts. When the more recent station (also brought to light through Anthony’s survey efforts) showed exactly the same pattern, Steve started looking into the adjustment process.

Once comes back on line, I would really suggest people have a look at it. It is a community effort that average people can take part in. Look for USHCN network stations near you and survey them. Instructions are on the site. The goal isn’t to refute or sustain the global warming issue, the goal is to survey the monitoring sites and audit their compliance with USHCNs own standards for station location. The network is billed as “high quality” and so far with 20% of the stations surveyed, appears to be anything but “high quality” in how the sensors are located.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM

The Ten Myths of “Global Warming” (source) (source credentials)

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Maxx on August 10, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Pretty good to be reading this article while it’s 63 degress outside in the middle of August!

crazy_legs on August 10, 2007 at 2:15 PM

It’s funny how we conservatives didn’t need to know the above before we knew Global Warming was a fraud. The left is so gullible. Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” (paraphrased)


“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

David Geffen – Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul

mark24609 on August 10, 2007 at 2:28 PM

You watch… my prediction is the the Global Warming alarmists will switch nomenclature. Strike that… will require them to shift to the topic of “CLIMATE CHANGE” and away from Global Warming. Climate Change covers all the bases – cooling and warming and thus avoids the facts. The political agenda is now better served where the US is bad we must have global policies as mandated by Gore and the UN to tax us to death.

Sergei on August 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Nope, as I told others – The global warming alarmists, leftists, etc. will completely ignore this, and we’ll continue to be compared to holocaust “deniers”, while generations of children continue to be lied to and look down on us. F**king ridiculous. Admittedly I haven’t watched much news today, but in the minutes I did, I heard nothing from Jane Skinner about this, and as I said this is arguably one of the biggest stories of our generation… partly because it’s the biggest hoax since evolution, but partly because of the money spent and that will be spent to combat “global warming”, and the NWO implications I mentioned earlier, which became all the more obvious when Britain’s new PM said this spring that we need a “New World Order” to combat global warming.

Sadly, one of the biggest stories of our lives’ will never see the light of the MSM day. I think I’m going to be sick. Or maybe I’ll just go pointlessly drive around to increase my carbon footprint.

RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM

What this story proves is that scientists, or more accurately, people who work in the scientific fields, are predominately left wing. Which is something we know already, not just from our own experience of going to school, but from simple intuition about the nature of university educated people. Scientists not only have left wing political views, but those political views enter into their work. Thus, every message given to society, from scientists, must be filtered for political bias. Nothing is what is seems.

jihadwatcher on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM

It’s unbelievable that is STILL being hit with a DOS attack. Typical liberal response: if things aren’t going your way, throw a tantrum.

-Fat Old Guy

Fogpig on August 10, 2007 at 4:22 PM

On a related note, here’s an idea on how to flummox your friends, family and co-workers who are eco-conscious and global warming true-believers.

The popular emphasis on how to slow down the increase in atmospheric CO2 is emission reduction but there is another side to the equation – sequestration. We’re talking the carbon cycle. As carbon – in the form of CO2 – is released to the atmosphere about 55 percent is reabsorbed by a variety of mechanisms, including oceanic absorption, terrestrial and ocean biomass, calciferous rock formation, etc. Each of these sequestration mechanisms holds the carbon for a varying period of time before it’s eventually released. This is the carbon cycle. Naturally, carbon held in rock is sequestered for the longest time – millions of years – and carbon in the terrestrial biomass the shortest time – as short as 46 years for some forest types. Therefore, if we want to reduce the increase of atmospheric CO2 we need to sequester as much carbon as we can by a mechanism that has a long carbon cycle. For instance, research is now being done on pumping CO2 down old oil wells – basically, burying the carbon. Burying is a grand way to sequester carbon for long periods of time.

Now, consider the landfill.

In global warming terms, a landfill is not just a smelly dump – it is a long-term carbon sequestration site. Everything organic contains carbon. Newspapers, paper bags, plastic, cardboard – all contain carbon. If these items are recycled, the carbon cycle is extremely short. However, if they are buried in a landfill their carbon cycle lengthens considerably – even to thousands of years for plastics. Therefore, any recycling of organic material is harmful to the environment and could actually destroy the earth through global warming. (That’s what you tell your eco buddies anyway.) Talk about a mind-boggling conundrum – their heads might explode. And if they squawk about the shortage of landfill sites, tell them to drive through Wyoming – there’s enough room for the whole world’s garbage for a thousand years.

Do something about global warming. Stop recycling!

(Biodegradable is bad too.)

lonesomecharlie on August 10, 2007 at 4:27 PM

One person didn’t see the problem with having weather stations in parking lots, because “aren’t there parking lots in the world too?”

pedestrian on August 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM

No. No way. No way somebody said that. Are you sure there wasn’t a cute little “sarcasm” emoticon right after it?

No way.

There are ovens in the world, too. Perhaps they could put some of the measuring devices in ovens.

Professor Blather on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM

When Al Gore was running for President, his campaign website showed the first few days of January 2000 as 19100.

The irony meter goes to eleven!

The Monster on August 10, 2007 at 5:13 PM

I love you, lonesomecharlie.

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Once comes back on line,…

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Don’t hold your breath.

right2bright on August 10, 2007 at 5:55 PM

California just forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of kwh in “usage tiers”. Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts in the state legislator determined was because of Global Warming, results in a penalty rate.

My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I consumed into the penalty usage tier they call “energy hogs”.

From $200 to $600 even though most days were in excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F.

I want a refund!

This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the planet with fraudulent research by NASA.

My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase because of bogus science.This is a real world example of consensus science run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the other businesses in this state.

Pure insanity. How do I as a homeowner pass the cost along?

ScottyDog on August 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

“Don’t hold your breath.

right2bright on August 10, 2007 at 5:55 PM”

He has a hard telecom outatage last I read, his T1 that feeds his business where he has the site went dark. It was a physical connectivity issue last I read.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 6:54 PM is back up now. And Anthony Watts’ blog is here.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 7:15 PM

ScottyDog on August 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

WOW. That’s a scary story. If you are getting nailed with the thermostat set at 82 degrees, there’s really nothing you can do to keep from going into hock thanks to your local eco-but not human-friendly government. This is where Hugo Chavez steps in to save the say, no doubt.

I’m curious – what’s The Governator’s position on this?

Buy Danish on August 10, 2007 at 8:30 PM

“One person didn’t see the problem with having weather stations in parking lots, because “aren’t there parking lots in the world too?””

pedestrian on August 10, 2007 at 1:01 PM
No. No way. No way somebody said that. Are you sure there wasn’t a cute little “sarcasm” emoticon right after it?

No way.

There are ovens in the world, too. Perhaps they could put some of the measuring devices in ovens.

Professor Blather on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM

I s#*t you not:

And the reply of a counter-denialist:

“And this is why you see climatologist talk about temperature changes, not absolute temperatures”

pedestrian on August 10, 2007 at 8:31 PM

Christoph on August 10, 2007 at 1:06 AM
RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 2:56 AM
desertdweller on August 10, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I can see that I’m not alone with being fed up with the left’s deception:
“The debate is over”
“This is not a political issue, it’s a moral issue”.

Moral issue? How about telling the TRUTH?

This whole man-made global warming thing is a fabricated polital issue. Democrats are trying to “values voters”. Democrats can’t win on practically any “values voter” issue (abortion, etc.), so they are trying to deceive them with lies like:
1) “Bush Lied”
2) “Most Ethical Congress Ever”
3) “Global Warming is a moral issue and the debate is over”

The Democrats playbook is to do anything they can to make themselves look ethical and Republicans look unethical. Even if they have to LIE/DECEIVE/COVER-UP doing it!

The debate is clearly not over, as evidenced by (if nothing else) the myriad of comments to this post. However, there is one place where the statement “The debate is over” is actually true, and guess what the outcome was?

The Debate is Over: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis

ITookTheRedPill on August 10, 2007 at 9:23 PM

So are we still all going to die, or should I keep putting money into the 401k?

frankj on August 9, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Heh, party on Frank, party on like it was 1999! That was the hottest year on record….wasn’t it….damn…never was good a rithmatic!!

Liberty or Death on August 10, 2007 at 10:14 PM

There is one such station that is on the roof of a newspaper building in Ukiah California. The rooftop air handlers are right next to it. What happens when you add 20 more servers to your data center? A temperature change!

What happens when that asphalt is resurfaced to fresh new blacker asphalt? A temperature change!

It’s just plain silly.

crosspatch on August 10, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Well, I guess this document could also take some wind out of the gorebot’s sails as well:

Crazy ol thing called physics.

Kevin on August 11, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Enjoyed your useful posts, crosspatch. Well done.

This news made my day.

Some of the smartest people I know can’t believe that I would deny that humans are directly responsible for global warming. No matter how many actual facts I recite and common sense arguments I make.

I can’t believe they’re actually buying this AGW BS. It stuns me that they do; with a passion and genuine fervor they believe it. And they believe themselves superior for beliving it. It’s like living in the Twilight Zone, I tell ya.

I hope this news opens the eyes and ears of the American People and the People of the World and lets them see and hear the Truth.

Wouldn’t it be excellent if Truth made a comeback?

techno_barbarian on August 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Storms, Hansen explained in an e-mail to The Associated Press, are fueled by heat and moisture…..
RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 2:59 AM

Hansen doesn’t even have that part completely right….
The worst storms are when a warm & moist front meets a cold front. I know as much about weather science as I do about ‘African Literature from the First Century BC’…. But at least even I know that warm and moist aren’t the only components of bad storms.

LegendHasIt on August 11, 2007 at 2:08 AM

This whole business is so much like the terrorists actions.
The Imans try out the air safety system to see how much they can do before they are called on their actions. Now they’re trying to send weird shaped objects through the screening machines at the airports. It’s all part of their plan to lay the groundwork for their next attack with more powerful weaponry then they used the last time.

The eviro-nazis are using the same strategy with their attacks on the American people and the rest of the world. First they conned people into the believe that DDT was toxic and should be banned, thus condemning millions of poor people in Africa and Southeast Asia to die from malaria. Then they decided that they needed to make money from their next con. Thus they invented the “ozone hole” panic and got Freon outlawed. All Freon containing air conditioners had to be converted to R134 use and I’m sure that the same eviro-nazis owned the companies that produced the R134 or had large stock positions in those companies. They made a fortune from the average consumer who could no longer afford to buy Freon due the scarcity induced price increases and had to buy the R134. Never mind that R134 is NOT as efficient as Freon and therefore more energy was required to maintain the same temperature as before R134. Now that they made a monetary fortune they decided that they still weren’t satisfied and this time decided that what they want is POWER. Since it is GLOBAL warming, the solution has to be a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with the power to pass laws and demand taxation in an effort to solve the invented problem. They succeeded with the first two power plays, so they are completely convinced that they will be able to pull this one off as well and with the “sheep” that we have in this country who have been brainwashed by public education, they probably will succeed. I got my B. S. in chemisty from a private university, so I wasn’t brainwashed like most other people. I have been asking for years if the ozone molecule is lighter than air or heavier than air. If it is heavier than air then why doesn’t all the ozone in the ozone layer fall to earth? If it is lighter than air then what is the problem with ozone, because it will rise in the atmosphere and replenish the ozone layer naturally. Freon has nothing to do with any of this and was picked on just like DDT was as a trial to see if the eviro-nazis could convince people to follow their devious plan to become rich by forcing a change to R134.

Once they have their ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT in place, the poor guy in Kalifornia may have to set his thermostat at 85 degrees by law or they will cut off his electric service completely as punishment. Your thermostat setting will be mandated by the government and the punishment for violating the law will be severe, because they will have the POWER that they have been seeking since they changed their methodology on how to gain power. They NEED a crisis of some kind that threatens the whole world so they can come riding in on their white horse with the solution; a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT with them in charge because they are the only ones smart enough to solve the crisis. They are the communist/socialist/humanist/enviro-nazis who worship Gaia and not the Creator.

TruthToBeTold on August 11, 2007 at 2:31 AM

I bought all of these carbon credits on eBay last week and boy, do I look stupid. Come on NASA, get with it.

saved on August 11, 2007 at 7:25 AM

…one of the great travesties of climate science…. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software.

desertdweller on August 9, 2007 at 10:28 PM
RightWinged on August 10, 2007 at 2:56 AM

Question: Would a Freedom of Information Act request work here? Would the government be required to release these algorithms and software for public review?

ITookTheRedPill on August 11, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Chris Muir’s DayByDay Cartoon is dedicated to this today.

PattyAnn on August 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM

“Question: Would a Freedom of Information Act request work here? ”

No. It has been tried … several times. They always manage to twist the meaning of the request. If you request it you will be told that the raw temperature data are available online. But that isn’t what you asked for, is it?

For many of these people, warming is a religion. They are not going to hand over their sacred texts to people who might go digging into them and find inconsistencies.

crosspatch on August 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM

ScottyDog on August 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM

WOW. That’s a scary story. If you are getting nailed with the thermostat set at 82 degrees, there’s really nothing you can do to keep from going into hock thanks to your local eco-but not human-friendly government. This is where Hugo Chavez steps in to save the say, no doubt.

I’m curious – what’s The Governator’s position on this?

Buy Danish on August 10, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Arnold signed the damned legislation and bragged about it, saying it would help conservation and Global Warming.He has turned into a left winged liberal in his second term.

I called my Electric Utility and complained that the Tier Usage penalizes customers even though they try to conserve. They have decided, on high, what the average house should consume and if you go over their average house your going to be penalized!

I challenge you all, to look at your utility bills and multiply by .31 per kwh which is what I am being forced to pay to help Global Warming. I am so angry I cannot see straight. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory not a scientific fact yet public policy is being legislated on the myth that it is a fact.

I am seriously thinking about moving to another state.

We all are going to the City Council Meeting next Tuesday and are going to protest the new electric rates. I am going to bring in the new data from NASA to debunk their arguments about Global Warming.

You all should be outraged that public policy is based on junk science. You are going to be paying too. Like they say, California is usually the leader in liberal policies. If California passes something so goes the nation.

ScottyDog on August 11, 2007 at 2:14 PM

LOL over the first comment on MM’s site:

On August 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pm, ajmontana said:

“Reverse Al-gore-rithms”

ITookTheRedPill on August 11, 2007 at 4:00 PM

More fraud brought to you by the “Global Warmers” the US government and your tax dollars.

According to the EIA (Energy Information Administration) created by Congress in 1977, the way the earth cools is via infrared radiation into space.

The EIA is an adviser to the Energy Department and their official statement on how the earth cools is shown below. Simply put, the EIA is saying that nearly 100% of the heat sent to earth by the sun, is eventually transferred back into space via infrared radiation. Please see the EIA’s statement below:

What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant.

Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Official Energy Statistics website for the U.S. Government

The EIA’s explanation for how the earth cools is laughable, the statement is far beyond ridiculous and is clearly propaganda tailored to serve the exclusive interests of “Global Warming” advocates. Being that the EIA is a government agency, this constitutes a blatant fraud on the American people. Junkscience you say ? No sir ! Their statement cannot be elevated to that category, because junkscience always has some thread of plausibility, but their statement has none. Persons with only a passing interest in science could not possibly get it this wrong. Yet, the EIA might have a way out of this mess. They could claim it was a propagandized child still in elementary school who was chosen to write this particular statement.

So how ridiculous is it? Well.. if the earth’s only means of cooling was via infrared radiation into space, as the EIA states, then the earth would have incinerated long ago. The sun sends it’s full spectrum, high energy, white light to earth at a far greater rate than the earth’s low level infrared radiation signature could ever dissipate it.

Imagine trying to save a ship from sinking that was taking on water at the rate of a thousand gallons per minute by using a pump that was only capable of pumping one gallons per minute. That ship is going to sink, because the water is coming in at a much faster rate than the pump can move it overboard.

Just as the ship would sink, the earth would overheat, because the earth’s infrared radiation has nowhere near the heat transfer capacity that would be required to equal the rate of heat being sent to earth by the sun.

The sun sends us it’s heat and light via photons which are the full spectrum of white light and very high energy compared to earth’s infrared signature, thus infrared is not able to move heat away from the earth at anywhere near the rate the sun sends it to us.

Of course some negligible amount of heat is lost back into space due to infrared radiation. To get an idea of how much consider the three modes of heat transfer, thermal radiation is by far the LEAST efficient. The three modes of heat transfer are:

1) Conduction : Heat transfer through a solid.
2) Convection : Heat transfer through a liquid or gas.
3) Thermal Radiation : Heat transfer via electromagnetic (infrared) waves (photons).

While Conduction and Convection are efficient means of heat transfer, neither mode can transfer any heat into space because space is a vacuum. A vacuum is the perfect insulator because there is no solid, liquid or gas in a vacuum to allow heat transfer via conduction or convection. Therefore, thermal radiation is the only means by which the earth can lose heat into space.

So why can’t the earth radiate heat away from itself as quickly as the sun send it to us ? The simple answer is because the earth is not as hot as the sun. In other words, in order for the earth to be as efficient as the sun at transferring heat via thermal radiation, the earth would have to be at the same temperature as the sun. The cooler the object, the less efficient it is for the purpose of thermal radiation.

And we would not want the earth’s heat to be lost into space at nearly the same rate it is received, the result would be a frozen world, a dead planet. It would be like trying to heat your home in the dead of winter with all the doors and windows open, your home would freeze and so would you.

The fact is, the amount of heat dissipated from the earth via infrared radiation is so small as to be insignificant, probably far less than one percent. If this was not true, and most heat energy was radiated away from a body and back into space, as the EIA states above, then we should be able to feel the sun’s heat being radiated from the moon, but of course we cannot. Furthermore, astronauts in space should feel nearly the same amount of heat through their shuttle windows from the earth as they do the sun. Obviously, that is not true.

So the question becomes, if the earth does not cool via infrared radiation, then how does it cool ? I’m glad you ask that question.

Clearly, food contains energy. Engines can run on pure Ethanol, which is made from corn. We eat food and thereby extract the energy that our bodies need for life. Cows eat grass that supplies their energy needs. All plant life contains energy.

While plants draw nutrients from the soil, the conversion of those nutrients is not possible without the energy from the sun which drives the process of photosynthesis. Both sunlight and heat are required for photosynthesis to occur. The heat is absorbed or “used-up” to run the process.

This is one reason why vegetation is sparse to nonexistent in arctic areas, there is plenty of sunlight, but not enough heat for photosynthesis to occur for most types of plants. And of course, plant life located in area with four seasons normally go dormant during the winter months, not enough heat to run the growing process is why. Plants having adequate heat and sunlight are able to convert that energy to another form. Trees and plants grow by using the heat and light as an energy source which fuels their growth. The absorption of heat and sunlight by plants causes much of the earth’s cooling. Plant life is responsible for a great deal of cooling, this is why a forest is cooler than the desert.

But plant life is not the primary means by which the earth cools, overwhelmingly the earth cools because of a process called EVAPORATION. Evaporation is a process by which heat energy is converted into kinetic energy…. in the form of an expanded water molecule. Heat is absorbed in the process, thus cooling occurs.

Have you ever lifted a gallon of water? It’s heavy stuff, it weighs about eight pounds per gallon. Have you ever wondered what does all the heavy lifting to bring billions of gallons of water over land each year? Well here’s a shocker… it’s the sun !

The sun heats the oceans and other bodies of water, which causes evaporation, which expands the water molecule turning liquid water into water vapor. Water vapor rises into the air and forms clouds, wind currents carry the clouds over land and when the right atmospheric conditions are met, the clouds condense and rain falls. It’s the sun’s energy that lifts all those giga-tons of water, an enormous amount of heat is required and absorbed in the process.

It takes billions of joules of energy to perform this massive evaporative process each day, and all of that energy is provided by the sun. Even the wind’s energy is a component of the sun. Uneven heating of the air causes expansions of air in some areas, thus high barometric pressures, along with lesser heated air in other areas, which forms lower barometric areas, thus the wind blows. So in reality, windmills are capturing energy that originated from the sun.

Thus energy from the sun, heat and light are converted to other forms of energy, this energy does not leave the earth, it is “used-up” to run the earth’s natural processes.

And what about hydro-electric power, where does all of that energy come from ? It’s simple, the same clouds that carried the water to irrigate you crops and lawns and provide your fresh drinking water also carried the water that flows from “upstream” through the dam’s generators which produce electricity onto power grid, which is supplying electricity to your computer right now. The original source of the power, was the sun.

This energy never leaves the earth, at some point it becomes mass, like dead vegetation that piles up to form top-soil. But the energy that comes in the form of heat is quickly transformed into some other type of energy, and the heat that was absorbed must be replaced by the sun every single day. If not, the process stops and the planet dies. The sun’s heat is not lost to space, it is used by the planet to warm it’s atmosphere, provide our fresh drinking water and produce our food along with many other earth processes.

The earth’s surface is two-thirds covered by water, the water acts as a kind of “thermostat” for the earth’s temperature. Provided the sun’s output does not dramatically increase, the earth cannot overheat. A slight increase in the sun’s output only causes evaporation to occur more quickly, and offsets the effects of more heat energy by running the natural processes at a faster rate.

The sun’s heat is our friend, the “global warmers” are not.

Maxx on August 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Maxx on August 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM

You left out the part where the sun’s energy is absorbed in the process of making our precious bodily fluids.

pedestrian on August 13, 2007 at 12:22 AM

pedestrian on August 13, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Dr. Strangelove is working on that update.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Maxx, awesome comment. May I copy/keep it?

RushBaby on August 13, 2007 at 10:13 AM

RushBaby on August 13, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Thank you, glad you liked it… and absolutely you can keep it, nothing is copyrighted here.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I found this on another message board from a man learned in global warming. I thought it was amazing:

“The interesting thing here is IF this turns out to be completely true, and so far nobody has proven it’s not(hansen himself has admitted the error), the following happens. If you track the observed warming trend with the updated more accurate temperature data, and cross reference it with the increase in solar irradiance due to sunspot activity you get a damn near perfect corollation.

Which suggests if true that the observable warming in the last 20+ years tracks almost 1 to 1 with the observable increase in solar irradiance, and therefore appears to NOT be manmade.

I just hope the solar irradiance guys aren’t using the same computers NASA was.

Note, the .8C is for US data only not worldwide just to be clear.”

Darksean on August 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM

“Many beautiful theories have been GORED by an ugly fact.”

I can’t remember the author, but it does seem ironic.

Texas Nick 77 on August 13, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Oh my !! …. Oh my Goodness…. PANIC !!!!! Look at this !!!!!!!

Source: Washington Post

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt !

Oh… nevermind, this article is from November 2, 1922.

Maxx on August 14, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Darksean on August 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM

That’s just too good to check. I just love how slowly but surely the truth is percolating to the surface. Facts win (in a free society) but they take longer.

Mojave Mark on August 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Hey, wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that the Arctic had lost six Californias of ice, not a California and a Texas? Must have been an eager but ignorant reporter, considering the report was covering Nghiem’s study.

Interesting that the time lapse showed the “long imagined … Northern Sea Route over Russia”, another preferred community-based-reality view dutifully regurgitated by the IHT, as a rather common occurance.

Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM