NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

Your googlefu is weak.

Did you even read the content of your link? This is their comments on the changes made in 2012. I have a news flash for you. It's 2014 and the numbers were adjusted upward once again. Why were there so many errors in vs 3.2.0?

Once again this is the report from June of this year. http://web.archive.org/web/20140807...nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

And this is the report from August of this year. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

You don't need to be a scientist to notice significant differences between the two.

So once again, what changed?

 

of course not its all faked evidence cooked by the global cartel of "tenured" University researchers to protect their jobs...

it's bad enough they have a limited grasp of science their fail safe answer is "cooked data/ fraud/conspiracy"...

 

While you were prattling on about conspiracies and frauds did you happen to notice that the observable reality is that the global temperature index changed from June to August of this year? Some here think that that change is due to coding errors that were discovered and corrected in 2012. That's certainly not what NASA has claimed. They haven't said much of anything that I can find about this recent change. Maybe you know why the index changed this year?

 

The error is that the NCDC, NOAA, and the GISS promised the Obama administration an el nino this fall. Tge administration intended to use the el nino as proof of AGW to push its EPA regs. Instead the el nino turned into la nada and the administration is pissed. So the heads at GISS, NCDC, and NOAA are doing everything they can to keep their jobs right now.

 

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!! How dare you not use models and computers to create extrapolations and estimates and "fill in the blank" interpolations to try and scare the CRAP out of people!! You keep posting factual information like this and people might begin to think and ask questions!!

 

Neither do zealots.

Doesn't even matter what brand of zealotry they are. Being objective is just plain hard.

 

Yea, it describes the same peer review approved practice which denialists were trumping up back in 2012. You're making the same argument, here is how the scientist explain data adjustments.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the objective point of view would be that every credible scientific organization backs AGW, and only fringe elements, often with energy industry ties, deny reality. Or maybe it's the biggest single conspiracy ever orchestrated. Occam's Razor.

 

You have the alarmist meme down pat. Some truth to it but false at the same time. That is how propaganda works. A kernal of truth bent out of proportion. Ask yourself why the older scientists are not alarmists? Is it because they are dependent on the energy industry or is it because they no longer depend on support and are free to express their viewpoint?

 

What "older" scientists? Look, i'm open-minded, and I understand that the scientific community actually embraces dissent. Give me a credible climate scientist without energy industry ties who argues that man is not largely responsible for the climate change we've seen since the Industrial Revolution.

 

CAGW does not embrace dissent, in fact just the opposite. The politicization of Climate Change has damaged the science.

 

Let's fully illustrate the stupidity of this response by repeating it.

You believe that a study in 2011 revealed errors in the homogenization of the raw data. These errors were corrected in 2012 with a new version of the code used to homogenize the data. Now, 2 years later, you (without any evidence mind you) claim that a new round of errors were located that required additional homogenization of the raw data.

Do you know what homogenization means?

 

I'm merely pointing out that this is was their response the last time psuedoscientists got their panties in a wad over data adjustments. I don't know that they've responded to this latest asinine attempt to undercut their findings. Why don't you write an email to someone at GISS?

Here's another question. If NASA is essentially fudging the numbers as you claim, is the Japanese Metereological Society in on it, too? They also recorded this August as the hottest on record. Clearly a global conspiracy, no doubt!

 

I didn't make any claim about fudging numbers or conspiracies. That's all coming from you. I'm asking you for the science. You keep claiming you support data and observable reality. Where is it? What is the reason for this latest change? All I've gotten from you are excuses and assumptions.

That's not science.

 

You gotta just love the deniers, they carp about the poor siting of the ground stations and demand the data be removed and the stations moved, and then when NOAA does just that the deniers whine that the data changed!!!

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation.

 

I gave you their own explanation for the process of data adjustment, for the thousandth time.

 

Why to they change past data when a station hasn't moved?

Older dataset for Portland Oregon has many years of temperatures 2+ F cooler than originally recorded.

 

Gotta love your attention to detail. What you posted above is the results of a study done in 2012. At that time, the data was adjusted to reflect the elimination of errors that were discovered in the homogenization process. After those changes, the data should be considered homogenized. It doesn't need to be homogenized again in 2014 unless something else changed. What changed between June and August of this year to cause them to make additional changes?

No, what you gave me was their explanation for the revision of their code to 3.2.0 This code has been in use for 2 years. Something then changed at the end of summer this year that caused them to once again redistribute the index. What was it?

Since you've admitted repeatedly you have no idea what you're talking about I've spent the morning trying to think of an analogy that you could comprehend. The best I could come up with is an IRS audit.

Let's say that in 2012 the IRS sends you a bill for a significant amount of money because they audited all your previous tax returns and found that due to accounting errors that they have now corrected you'll need to owe some additional taxes. In 2014 they send you a similar bill which itemizes changes to all of the previous changes to taxable items that you've already twice now paid. Do you assume, as you have here, that the IRS simply found more errors in their process that needed correction? Or do you ask them specifically what changed before you pay the bill?

It's astonishing to me that you call this request for transparency "whining" or "denial" What happened between June and August that precipitated the need for more adjustments? Why was their previous attempt at homogenization in June of this year wrong? Doesn't that question deserve a valid answer?

 

Dude, it's the same process. I believe GISS actually has a partial-record of data adjustments online, why not Google it? Just because you don't understand the reason for the adjustment does not mean that there is nefarious or negligent reason for it. As I and other posters have explained to you ad infinitum, there are many reasons for data adjustments, the explanations of which are easily available.

 

Well for me, these adjustments do make a difference. My local area historical data has 1986 and 1981 as previous August highs. When I compare the local data I can find, it's missing the daily low. However, the NOAA high temperatures are 2 degrees Fahrenheit or more cooler than the local official record. Without finding specific data, I did find this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/08/21/urban-heat-islands-study/14389371/

It has Portland as the fourth largest heat island effect, but the official record measuring equipment is outside the city, near the river. It appears it didn't keep NOAA from adjusting the data by 2+ F however. To compound that, NOAA has not adjusted downward the daily highs since 2013 and I read someplace else that 2013 is when they changed how they do past corrections.

The continuity of data cannot be trusted.

Now when I took the average August temperatures from 1941 to 2014, the average change from the years ranked by temperature was 0.12 F per ranking. Before the change in NOAA corrections, the largest change was 0.4 F. We are asked to believe that for Portland, 2014 is the highest, topping 1986 by 0.81 F! However, this is after the 1986 high was reduced by 2.3 F in the NOAA data.

Here's what the data looks like when compiled:

01 2014 73.1
02 1986 72.29
03 1981 72.11
04 1972 71.71
05 1977 71.66
06 1971 71.6
07 1997 71.52
08 2004 71.47
09 2013 71.21
10 2012 71.1
11 1998 70.98
12 1990 70.84
13 2005 70.71
14 1987 70.52
15 1996 70.32
16 1958 70.29
17 1961 70.29
18 1994 70.16
19 2003 70.05
20 1991 70.03
21 2009 69.9

I ranked them after having someone on another site claim 2009 was the second highest year for Portland.

 

I think you don't know dick about science then. It isn't a popularity contest. Its very existence relates to testing hypothesis, and it doesn't care how POPULAR any hypothesis might be. It REQUIRES people asking questions, even after the popular opinion says that the current hypothesis is working out okay. So no, it isn't only fringe elements, it has nothing to do with industry ties, and you DON'T get to pretend your hypothesis is REALITY just because it is POPULAR. SCIENCE requires asking questions to confirm a hypothesis, and when the hypothesis can't explain empirical evidence...I got news....your hypothesis...it AIN'T DOING SO WELL.

 

As a published scientist with more than 15 years of experience and the paychecks to prove it, I wouldn't have had my panties in a wad over the changing of historical data, I would have been FIRED for it. Now, I am willing to admit that in a different branch of science, CHANGING historical data is jim dandy wonderful and perfectly acceptable, but those WITHOUT scientific experience don't get to pretend it is the norm. Not a chance. It is other scientists objecting, because it says something about the quality of the data, and assumptions derived from that data in the FIRST place.

 

It's not about "popularity," it's about evidence. We have ample evidence that man is influencing climate change, you just choose not to believe it. Credibility matters when discussing an issue that threatens the largest industry in the world's profits, and fringe elements with industry ties and clear agendas are rightfully mocked by the scientific community.

 

What is your field? If you're saying you wouldn't disregard invalid data simply because you missed it the first time, than you're right---you should be fired in this hypothetical scenario.

 

Actually, we have no evidence that man is influencing the very complex climate. We only know two things for certain, that man produces CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anything beyond that is hypothesis and not proven. That's the facts Jack.

 

dude, where's the evidence you claim? You have it? I can tell you since you're new here that debate has been happening for over a year now. So what is it you have that none of your other peer warmers could provide us.