Y2K bug in NASA climate data

[Lovelynice]

Turns out that NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen screwed up on their climate statistics.

Steve McIntyre who operates the site climateaudit.org discovered errors while inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
http://www.climateaudit.org/

McKintyre notified Hansen and Ruedy. Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it and found what appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data. He then informed Ruedy of this, who acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently (without any fanfare) released corrected figures.

The warmest year on record for the USA is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record for the USA now all occur before World War II.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -.26 *
1881 .29 *
1882 .07 -.24
1883 -.68 -.30
1884 -.63 -.41
1885 -.54 -.46
1886 -.28 -.39
1887 -.17 -.21
1888 -.32 -.06
1889 .28 -.04
1890 .20 -.11
1891 -.20 -.19
1892 -.51 -.21
1893 -.72 -.38
1894 .17 -.30
1895 -.66 -.22
1896 .19 -.10
1897 -.08 -.22
1898 -.15 .03
1899 -.41 .00
1900 .57 -.01
1901 .05 -.11
1902 -.13 -.13
1903 -.65 -.34
1904 -.48 -.35
1905 -.47 -.37
1906 -.02 -.21
1907 -.24 -.17
1908 .14 -.02
1909 -.27 .02
1910 .28 -.11
1911 .17 -.15
1912 -.88 -.08
1913 -.03 -.16
1914 .09 -.29
1915 -.15 -.33
1916 -.50 -.31
1917 -1.06 -.35
1918 .06 -.40
1919 -.10 -.07
1920 -.41 .17
1921 1.15 .15
1922 .18 .02
1923 -.07 .17
1924 -.74 -.05
1925 .36 -.05
1926 .04 -.02
1927 .15 .01
1928 .07 -.03
1929 -.58 .18
1930 .16 .15
1931 1.08 .27
1932 .00 .63
1933 .68 .61
1934 1.25 .44
1935 .04 .41
1936 .21 .45
1937 -.13 .37
1938 .86 .36
1939 .85 .45
1940 .03 .49
1941 .61 .35
1942 .09 .21
1943 .17 .19
1944 .14 .22
1945 -.03 .22
1946 .72 .17
1947 .10 .18
1948 -.08 .13
1949 .20 -.10
1950 -.28 -.05
1951 -.42 .14
1952 .32 .27
1953 .90 .32
1954 .85 .47
1955 -.03 .43
1956 .29 .26
1957 .14 .13
1958 .06 .08
1959 .17 .02
1960 -.24 -.01
1961 -.02 .02
1962 -.02 -.03
1963 .19 -.01
1964 -.07 -.05
1965 -.11 -.07
1966 -.24 -.16
1967 -.10 -.19
1968 -.28 -.19
1969 -.23 -.16
1970 -.11 -.21
1971 -.10 -.11
1972 -.35 -.03
1973 .24 -.05
1974 .15 -.08
1975 -.20 .06
1976 -.25 -.09
1977 .37 -.24
1978 -.52 -.16
1979 -.60 .02
1980 .22 -.12
1981 .64 -.02
1982 -.36 .10
1983 -.01 -.03
1984 .00 -.01
1985 -.42 .22
1986 .73 .29
1987 .83 .25
1988 .32 .51
1989 -.19 .50
1990 .87 .40
1991 .69 .25
1992 .30 .38
1993 -.44 .27
1994 .46 .10
1995 .34 .05
1996 -.17 .38
1997 .03 .47
1998 1.23 .51
1999 .93 .69
2000 .52 .79
2001 .76 .65
2002 .53 .55
2003 .50 .58
2004 .44 .66
2005 .69 *
2006 1.13 *
---------------------------------

 

[marshalt]

al gore is going to pissed.

 

[huskie]

Thank you Lovelynice!! I knew I could count on you to figure this out!

 

[thør]

al gore is going to pissed.

You think?

He's still celebrating the Prius speed record his kid recently set.

 

[Lovelynice]

al gore is going to pissed.

I think Hansen already was.

Al Gore is just a political opportunist.

He's probably still in denial about the "Hockystick graph" being shown up as total BS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/nwarm05.gif

.

 

[Lovelynice]

Thank you Lovelynice!! I knew I could count on you to figure this out!

I've doubted the official hype for years because it's well known (or should be) that climate changes in cycles that have nothing to do with humans, and have been doing so for millions of years. There have been many periods warmer than now, many colder than now, and many with higher levels of CO2.





.

 

[phrodeau]

I've doubted the official hype for years because it's well known (or should be) that climate changes in cycles that have nothing to do with humans, and have been doing so for millions of years. There have been many periods warmer than now, many colder than now, and many with higher levels of CO2.





.

Looks like you fell for the unofficial hype there.

 

[Lovelynice]

Looks like you fell for the unofficial hype there.

What are you on about?

NASA made an error, do you have a problem dealing with that?

Or do you want to show up again how much of a fool you are by repeating propaganda that isn't supported by scientific evidence?

It seems to be your main problem, phrodeau, that you are a sheeple. You follow whatever the leaders of the flock say, without ever taking the time to scrutinise the claims for whether they are valid or not. You ignore contradictions.


.

 

[pellso27]

OMG I thought you were confiscated..........................

 

[modest mouse]

Global Warming is a catchy phrase but the issue is climate change and volatility. Dismissing it is foolishness. We are entering a phase of a far more volatile weather pattern and trends of drought and monsoons.

The argument that the data doesnt add up is stupid. What would be so bad if we worked to clean up our air, water, and soil? Man, what a fucking terrible thing to do.

SHRUG

 

[ronpaulitician]

What would be so bad if we worked to clean up our air, water, and soil?

Nothing, but if you're doing it at the cost of other problems that need to be resolved, you better make sure you know what you're doing.

 

[modest mouse]

Nothing, but if you're doing it at the cost of other problems that need to be resolved, you better make sure you know what you're doing.

Shit, just put Ron Paul on it. It'll all be fixed, with lower taxes even.

There is almost no downside to being diligent about protecting quality of life. Yes, a plasma TV may be more expensive, but too damned bad.

 

[ronpaulitician]

There is almost no downside to being diligent about protecting quality of life.

If there is no need to fight global warming, or if the fight is futile, our energy would be better spent fighting hunger, disease and war.

 

[modest mouse]

If there is no need to fight global warming, or if the fight is futile, our energy would be better spent fighting hunger, disease and war.

The stress of a fucked up environment will help induce hunger and disease. You don't fight global warming so much as you try to create a situation in which human occupation of Earth is sustainable at quality standards of health and welfare(quality of life).

 

[ronpaulitician]

The stress of a fucked up environment will help induce hunger and disease. You don't fight global warming so much as you try to create a situation in which human occupation of Earth is sustainable at quality standards of health and welfare(quality of life).

Fair enough, but it's still a matter of risk assessment. And, in the end, it's a matter of individuals making sacrifices.

 

[phrodeau]

What are you on about?

NASA made an error, do you have a problem dealing with that?

Or do you want to show up again how much of a fool you are by repeating propaganda that isn't supported by scientific evidence?

It seems to be your main problem, phrodeau, that you are a sheeple. You follow whatever the leaders of the flock say, without ever taking the time to scrutinise the claims for whether they are valid or not. You ignore contradictions.


.

It seems to me that you choose to ignore all of the contradictions in your version of the events of 9/11.

So what is your take on climate change then, that it is inevitable, is natural, can safely be ignored, or which?

 

[atmas]

You think?

He's still celebrating the Prius speed record his kid recently set.

This is awesomely funny.

 

[thør]

This is awesomely funny.

Time to buy stock in Toyota Racing.......

 

[Lovelynice]

It seems to me that you choose to ignore all of the contradictions in your version of the events of 9/11

Not at all, but I've noticed that you have NEVER been able to back your bullshit in any argument on the subject.

When are you going to back your point of view about 9/11 with a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse?


When are you going to cite any event where STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE BUILDINGS collapsed straight-down into their bases any time in the ENTIRE HISTORY of STEEL FRAMED HI-RISE BUILDINGS without a controlled demolition being the cause - apart from the three miracle buildings of 9-11?


When are you going to explain how it is possible for ALL the supports on a floor both the undamaged structural supports and the damaged ones in varying amounts of damage, to fail on all sides of a building - at the EXACT SAME TIME - not just in ONE BUILDING, but in all THREE BUILDINGS???


When are you going to provide links, quotes, and sources to back your claims about the cellphones, and show a SCIENTIFIC STUDY that shows that cellphones can make successful many-minutes-long calls from passenger jets flying at passenger jet speeds, and at passenger jet altitudes?

 

[Lovelynice]

It seems to me that you choose to ignore all of the contradictions in your version of the events of 9/11.

So what is your take on climate change then, that it is inevitable, is natural, can safely be ignored, or which?

INEVITABLE AND NATURAL - and there's not a thing that humans could do either way about it.

http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07282/IceAgesTempCO2.png
These rises and falls of Ice Ages with warming periods have been going on for MILLIONS OF YEARS - long before any industrialisation.
http://xs117.xs.to/xs117/07282/5MYiceages.png

The real problem that seems to be ignored about human industry is that we are poisoning ourselves and everything else, destroying our fertility and making ourselves sick. Toxins are the problem, not greenhouse gases (which we produce minuscule amounts compared to nature).

THOSE TOXINS ARE THE REAL PROBLEM, not climate changes which we can't control and which have been going on for eons without any human influence whatsoever.

Rates of sterility, birth defects, cancers, have been rising dramatically due to these toxins; chemicals which NEVER EXISTED in the environment before. This is statistically supportable. The claims that human industry drives global warming AREN'T statistically supportable despite the political hype, the distortions pushed by the media (which will jump on any bandwagon of scare mongering to make more money), and the misrepresentations of political institutions like the IPCC.

 

[Lovelynice]

The stress of a fucked up environment will help induce hunger and disease.

They said the exact same thing during the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/03/2007-03-25GW.bmp

THE SAME DOOMSDAY CLAIMS MADE ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING IN THE 1960S AND 1970S

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)


The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)


I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)


In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)


Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)


This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976


There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)


This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976


If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

It's toxins which are the danger, not the climate which we can't control

dioxin in almost everything around us is not natural.
mercury in fish is not natural
rain forest being obliterated is not natural
acid rain is not natural
cows eating meat is not natural
antibiotics and steroids in meat and poultry is not natural
a HUGE increase in cancer is not natural

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

This is s serious blow to the pulpit...

The choir still sounds enthusiatic though.

I think one of the morning's headlines said something about a California draft Gore movement.

I see also in the news, the Pentagon might like to draft Gore too!






That boy's some peice of work. Lawdy...
Fine piece of ass though!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

They said the exact same thing during the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/03/2007-03-25GW.bmp


It's toxins which are the danger, not the climate which we can't control

dioxin in almost everything around us is not natural.
mercury in fish is not natural
rain forest being obliterated is not natural
acid rain is not natural
cows eating meat is not natural
antibiotics and steroids in meat and poultry is not natural
a HUGE increase in cancer is not natural

Mercury in the fish is too natural, as is a little arsinic. You're not part of the zero contaminants in water crowd are you?

Afraid of flouride?



Same for most of that. It's a DECREASE in cancer rates that's unatural when you're curing everything else...

Acid rain? After every volcanic eruption. It's natural.

Maybe a different word would work...

 

[Lovelynice]

Mercury in the fish is too natural,

Tell me about that after you look up
Minamata disease.

Japanese are extremely familiar with the results of mercury poisoning in fish

as is a little arsinic.

But not things like dioxin. Funny, why are you not dealing with that one. There's around 12,000 of these chemicals which never existed in nature before human industries came along and started producing them.

You're not part of the zero contaminants in water crowd are you?

Are you trying to imply that I am?

Afraid of flouride?

Flouride is a poison. There's already tiny quantities in natural water supplies, but there seems to be more health costs as a result of adding flouride to water supplies than benefits.

No one is going to die from drinking one glass of flouride water just as no one will die from one cigarette. It is the longer-term chronic effects of glass after glass of flouride water that takes its toll on human health.

Even if fluoridation did improve teeth, the environment is now chock full of fluoride pollution, and enough gets in the water and our food on its own there's no longer any need to waste public money adding it (and risking accidents such as Annapolis MD 1979).

Just a few things for you to check (and I'm trying to make it easy for you)

In 1980 dentist John Colquhoun, then an ardent supporter of fluoridation, was sent by officials from Wellington, the capital, on a world study tour of fluoridation so that he would be qualified to lead a campaign to extend fluoridation in New Zealand. After completing his tour and considering his research he became an outspoken critic of fluoridation.

In 1985, the Chief Dental officer in Auckland investigated tooth decay statistics from 98% of all 12 to 13 year olds in New Zealand (60,000). He found no significant difference in tooth decay rates between flouridated and non flouridated areas

Hardy Limeback ‘Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive...“the crowning blow was the realization that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida, smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry.”

There's also the Mebourne incident, a boy, "Jason Burton" swallowed six fluoride tablets, 0.5mg fluoride each; family doctor recovers four with stomach pump; boy loses consciousness, goes to hospital; hospital so disinformed about fluoride they neglect to check the books and assume it takes 200+ tablets to be lethal; child dies anyway; official death certificate lists "Fluoride poisoning" as cause; Australian authorities deny fluoride has ever killed anyone. It strikes me the child may have been oversensitive; the interesting parts are that the hospital didn't realise fluoride is poisonous and the denials that fluoride can kill.


Most developed nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped or banned the practice. Some examples are as follows. The years when water Fluoridation started and stopped are in parentheses:
* German Federal Republic (1952-71)
* Sweden (1952-71)
* Netherlands (1953-76)
* Czechoslovakia (1955-1990)
* German Democratic Republic (1959-90)
* Soviet Union (1960-90)
* Finland (1959-93)
* Japan (1952-72)

PROFESSIONALS' STATEMENT CALLING FOR AN END TO WATER FLUORIDATION
AUGUST 9, 2007
http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
This report showed that fluoridation of water supplies has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects, including increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, and dental fluorosis.

Same for most of that. It's a DECREASE in cancer rates that's unatural when you're curing everything else...

I don't see you posting any evidence to support this claim.

Acid rain? After every volcanic eruption. It's natural.

Industrial-caused acid rain isn't.

Maybe a different word would work...

Not really. I think most people can understand the difference between natural and unnatural sources (such as industry).

 

[phrodeau]

At least you haven't said that they're trying to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.